Asylum Seekers: Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran and Sudan
 - Question

Bishop of Durham: To ask His Majesty’s Government what forecast they have made of the number of people from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, and Sudan who will travel to the United Kingdom via a safe route in order to seek asylum in 2023.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The United Kingdom welcomes vulnerable people in need of protection through our relocation and resettlement schemes. The number of people coming to the UK via safe and legal routes depends on many factors, including local authorities’ capacity to support them and the extent to which community sponsorship continues to thrive. There is no explicit provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel here to seek asylum or temporary refuge.

Bishop of Durham: I thank the Minister for that Answer. We know from the latest available numbers that between September 2021 and September 2022, only close to 1,400 people were resettled to the UK through the specific safe routes of resettlement. This figure is 75% lower than in 2019, and the number of family reunion visas issued is 36% below the pre-pandemic figure. As the Minister knows, all the countries referred to in my Question have an asylum grant rate of over 80%, with Afghanistan, Syria and Eritrea sitting at over 97%. The number of individuals claiming asylum from these nations stood at more than 26,500. Now that the Government are deciding admissibility on the basis of arrival, will they establish further safe routes for high grant rate countries such as Sudan, Eritrea, Syria and Iran, to reduce the need for asylum seekers to travel irregularly?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The principle is clear in the refugee convention that people claiming asylum need to be in the country in which they seek refuge, having come directly from that country. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we are not bound to consider asylum claims from the large numbers of people overseas who might like to come here.

Lord German: My Lords, we learned from the Home Secretary and her team giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee that a hypothetical  16 year-old orphan from an African country such as Sudan or Eritrea fleeing war and religious persecution, with siblings legally in the United Kingdom, has no safe or legal route to seek refuge in the United Kingdom. Why has this happened?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: As the noble Lord will have heard in my recent Answer, the principle is that you claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. The question Mr Loughton posed at the Home Affairs Select Committee is answered like this: depending on the country you are from, you could engage with the UNHCR; that would be a way of getting leave to enter the UK in order to put in an asylum claim, but clearly, there are some countries where that would not be possible.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s negative reply. If we take one country alone, Afghanistan, have the Minister and the Government forgotten that thousands upon thousands of Afghans, in the 40 years of war, sided with and fought for Britain there? Why are they neglecting them now and going back on their earlier promises?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Government certainly have not forgotten the people of Afghanistan. As the noble Lord will remember, Operation Pitting was the largest UK military evacuation since the Second World War, during which we evacuated about 15,000 individuals to the UK. In the year since the evacuation began on 14 August 2021, a further 6,000 arrived in the UK via neighbouring countries.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said about the importance of addressing the right reverend Prelate’s Question about safe and legal routes, does he not accept that, with the UNHCR that he has just referenced saying that there are now between 75 million and 80 million people displaced in the world, this is a global problem that requires international solutions? Should the Government not be leading the way in drawing countries together to look at the root causes of the displacement, and trying to stop these terrible, perilous journeys in small boats, whether across the channel, the Aegean or the Mediterranean, leaving a trail of sorrow behind them?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: There is much in what the noble Lord says. It is sadly the truth that we cannot help everyone, with worldwide displacement now standing at around 100 million, not merely 70 million as the noble Lord suggested. The Government continue to offer safe and legal routes for those in need of protection. Since 2015, we have resettled more than 28,000 refugees from regions of conflict and instability through the global UK resettlement scheme, community sponsorship and the mandate schemes, under which the UNHCR will refer the most vulnerable refugees from across the globe for resettlement to the UK.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, whatever the outcome of Operation Pitting, it did leave behind people who should have been included. Do the Government  remain committed to helping the families of interpreters who work for British military personnel and political leaders visiting the country, including the former Prime Minister, who were unable to get out and who remain in terrible danger in Afghanistan?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The answer to the noble Viscount’s question is yes. The Afghan relocations and assistance policy, launched on 1 April 2021, offers relocation to eligible Afghan citizens who worked for or with the United Kingdom Government locally in Afghanistan. The ARAP recognises the service of eligible Afghan citizens and the risks arising to them and their dependent family members as a result of their work.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what provision in the refugee convention permits us to refuse to even consider someone who arrives on our shores seeking asylum?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The provision is Article 31(1).

Lord Coaker: My Lords, the asylum system is in chaos: 140,000 asylum seekers, and rising, are waiting for an initial decision; 90,000 have been waiting for over six months, and more than 40,000 for between one and three years. It is also reported that 725 claimants, of whom 155 are children, have been waiting over five years. How many of these cases apply to these five countries? Will the Minister join the Prime Minister in promising to clear the asylum backlog by the end of the year? It is action we need, not gimmicks.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The noble Lord is entirely right: it is action we need, and I can certainly recommit to the ambition, outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement, to clear the backlog. As to the various countries within the backlog, those statistics exist but I am afraid I do not have them to hand, so I will need to write to the noble Lord about them.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, can the Minister say something about the Government scheme for allowing direct applications from people in Syrian refugee camps? This is surely a far better route than the much more perilous one used by those trying to come here illegally.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I entirely agree with my noble friend and clearly, that is the purpose of the UK resettlement scheme. Perhaps it would assist if I outlined that between 2015 and September 2022, we offered a place to nearly 450,000 men, women and children seeking entry via safe and legal routes, including those from Syria but also those from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, as well as the family members of refugees.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, when the folk arrive here, they are given an ASPEN card, which did provide £35 a week for their subsistence.  Has that gone up with inflation? What is the value now? Is it still £35, as it was 10 or 15 years ago, or has it gone up?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I can certainly provide detailed information on the asylum support provisions. Clearly, those in hotels have their accommodation provided for them and are provided with food and a small amount of money for expenditure on essentials. Those in dispersal accommodation receive a financial sum, which has changed with inflation. I will be able to provide the noble Lord with the precise statistics by letter; I am afraid this is quite a long way from the topic of the Question.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, the UK says that asylum seekers must go to the first safe country, but the United Nations commissioner for human rights says that that is incorrect. Would the Minister like to comment?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Government’s position is clear: Article 31 requires that a person comes directly to the first safe country and is therefore obliged to claim in that country. Indeed, it is upon that principle that the European Union agreed the Dublin provisions about the return of asylum seekers to places where they made their first claim.

Universal Credit: Benefit Cap and Two Child Limit
 - Question

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: To ask His Majesty’s Government how many families in receipt of Universal Credit are subject simultaneously to the benefit cap and the two child limit.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, both policies aim to introduce fairness between households claiming benefits and taxpayers who support themselves solely through work. We estimate from published statistics that fewer than 30,000 households were impacted by both policies in April 2022, which is under 1% of households on universal credit. These families may benefit from additional financial help, such as the cost of living payment and discretionary housing payment, if they need additional support to meet rental costs.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, in the absence of official data hitherto, the Benefit Changes and Larger Families Project estimates that at least 110,000 children are being pushed deeper into poverty because their parents are caught by both the cap and the two-child limit. Evidence of the damaging effects strengthens the case for scrapping both policies, which are far from fair. At the very least, will the Government  now undertake to publish regular data on the numbers affected and monitor the impact on children and their parents?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I am certainly aware of the larger families project. The latest published statistics on households on universal credit show that the majority of families—79%—on universal credit had fewer than three children, with 21% of universal credit households with children having three or more children. Having said that, it is important to note that there are a number of other initiatives where we can help families with more than two children if they get into difficulty.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, one of the major contributors to poverty is the absence of affordable housing. Shelter produced a really alarming report this week which showed a year-by-year reduction in the building of affordable housing over the past 12 years. Do the Government have a commitment to reverse that policy and to increase the number of affordable homes built every year so that people living in abject poverty—particularly those depending on universal credit—will at least be able to find an affordable home?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Absolutely. There are a number of initiatives on housing, which I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware of. One example is the discretionary housing payment, which can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit, particularly those who face a shortfall in meeting their housing costs. It is certainly a matter that I am aware of, and I know that my noble friend Lady Scott will be very much on top of that. We are working across government on this issue.

Lord Farmer: My Lords, can my noble friend reassure me that universal credit still makes work pay despite childcare costs when there is more than one child? Of course, an at-home parent conscientiously doing their own childcare in the early years is, in fact, working. What expectation is placed on claimants to work when parental care is their strong preference?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Yes, my noble friend makes an important point. I should say at the outset that the Government firmly believe that, where possible, it is in the best interests of children to be in working households. That is why the department has continually provided support to help move people into work. To further that, this sort of support in making people financially resilient by moving them into work and also ensuring that they are progressing in work is important; up to 85% of the registered childcare costs each month is paid regardless of the number of hours that they work, compared with 70% for tax credits.

Archbishop of York: My Lords, it is encouraging to see that the Government are keeping a check on the numbers of people being affected by these policies, but I was not quite sure whether I heard that work is being done to measure the impact of the policies on families. I can say, and it gives me no joy to say it, that from where I serve in the north of England—I am thinking  particularly of Middlesbrough and Hull—I see the disturbing impact of an increase in poverty, child poverty and families in very difficult situations, not least with the cost of living crisis on top of all this. My simple, genuine and heartfelt question is: how would you explain this to a mum expecting her third child, or a family with three or four children who have been pushed into benefits over the past couple of years? They do not understand why this is happening but they are suffering as a consequence of it. How do we explain to them the rightness of this policy?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, first, we are very aware of the fact that some people are finding it particularly difficult at the moment—some very good points have been made about that. One of the issues to focus on, which we are doing, is childcare, which is a key enabler of employment for parents and has clear developmental benefits for children. Of course, the onus falls on the caseworkers in the jobcentres. Often they are very well trained, and they have to deal directly with these people who come with some heartfelt stories.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, can I give a specific example? The most reverend Primate has talked about the impact on individuals. The larger families study that the Minister mentioned interviewed parents who have been affected by this. It gives the example of a single mother who had experienced domestic abuse. She was given an exemption from the two-child limit under the rape clause because the child was conceived by rape, so she was then awarded an extra £237 a month. But then the benefit cap kicked in and she got only £30 a month of it. Because she struggled to provide for her children, she ended up returning to a violent relationship. I ask the Minister again: what does he think about the impact of these policies, not just their number?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The noble Baroness makes a good point because we should be aware of the impact, which is why we are working hard on a number of initiatives. As she will know, there are a number of fallbacks on top of this, particularly the provision of cost of living support worth over £37 billion for 2022-23, including £400 for the non-repayable discount to eligible households. However, it is more than this. I am in awe of people on the front, including those who work in the front line of the jobcentres, who work with the social workers, and indeed with the Church, to see through these very challenging issues for some families.

Lord Goddard of Stockport: My Lords, does the Minister agree that larger families on benefits are doubly penalised by the Government’s policy, not only by losing support for third or subsequent children but also due to the lack of affordable childcare to enable them to work? Those families are, in effect, losing £2,935 a year.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I mentioned childcare costs before and it is important to support parents who have childcare needs. Of course, we have the child benefit but on top of that there are other support mechanisms to ensure that those who have  children—particularly more than two, which is the subject of this Question—can survive and, in many cases, find the next meal.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, research has shown that the majority of children of single parents would be lifted above the poverty line if the absent fathers paid what they owe. For decades, the child maintenance system has let single mothers down, condemned children to poverty and let men get away with it. What is the Minister’s advice?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: This is another important subject. The child maintenance system supports separated parents to agree their own family-based arrangements where it is possible. Where it is not possible, the child maintenance system steps in. It is incredibly important that the paying parent pays, and this is where the system is dealing with some extremely challenging issues in order that the receiving parent receives what they are due.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, all noble Lords will be pleased that it is a small number of families that are affected. Can the Minister inform us whether any of those families are also being affected by having to pay back money, such as aged debts, when they are on such limited income? It has always struck me as rather odd since when you get fined in a court, very careful consideration is given to your means to pay, and if you borrow money from the Government for your education, you are not asked to repay it until you are earning a fair sum of money. The poorest in our society are being asked to pay money back to the Government, so can the Minister provide us with information on that?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I will need to write to my noble friend about that issue. I am certain that this system allows for payback whenever possible, but I will certainly look into that.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Can the Minister tell us when the special rules, which have passed through Parliament, will come into force for people caring for a terminally ill person at home, given that the cost of care has gone up quite significantly and that if it is a young parent, some people can find themselves in such poverty that they have to go bankrupt?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I do not have any information to hand on the future of any legislation, but I will certainly follow up with the noble Baroness and let her know whatever I have.

Hospitality Industry
 - Question

Baroness Twycross: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the current economic situation on the hospitality industry.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy use a range of data sources, including the ONS, Statista and IBISWorld, to assess the impact of the current economic situation on hospitality businesses. In addition, Ministers and officials work closely with hospitality businesses and the main trade bodies, including UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, and the British Institute of Innkeeping, which provide us with valuable data on levels of trading and economic performance.

Baroness Twycross: My Lords, the cost of living crisis is causing hardship not only to individuals and families but to the businesses that employ millions of people in the UK hospitality sector. Many of those businesses are on the brink of closure, not least due to food inflation and spiralling energy costs. Will the Government reverse their decision to reduce support for the sector in relation to energy bills and retain a permanent lower rate of 12.5% VAT? Will the Government also commit to updating their hospitality strategy, published in 2021, to ensure that the sector can meet the challenges that it now faces?

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness makes a good point. We will certainly keep the hospitality strategy under review. It is worth recognising that we have offered considerable support to the sector, as we have to all businesses. I am afraid that we cannot continue to provide such levels of support. Nevertheless, support is available through business rates relief and other policies, and we continue to liaise closely with the sector.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, would it not be helpful to make an assessment of the impact on the livelihood of those who work in the hospitality sector of the damage caused by the strikes on the railways?

Lord Callanan: My noble friend makes an important point. The sector estimates that the railway strikes have cost it over £1 billion in lost revenue during the strike period, so they do have a significant impact.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, it is a mystery to most people why, if oil and gas prices are coming down, energy bills are still high. For hospitality and arts venues, these bills have increased massively in the last year. Is the Minister aware that, according to the Night Time Industries Association, for most of 2022 one venue closed every two days? The Government should, and can, do much more to help, particularly considering that some energy companies are making huge profits.

Lord Callanan: That depends on what the noble Earl defines as an energy company. Many of the energy retailers are making very little money—in fact, they are losing money. Nevertheless, the noble Earl makes an important point. We want to make sure that there is no price gouging going on. We are in regular contact with Ofgem officials, and I have met with them.  One of my ministerial colleagues has met with the energy supply companies to make sure that they are also doing all they can to support these vulnerable businesses.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that one of the significant problems facing the hospitality industry has been the shortage of labour, a direct result of the Brexit of which he was such an enthusiastic supporter? What will the Government do to enable the hospitality industry to get suitable labour for the next season?

Lord Callanan: I am not sure that I would equate the two issues, but I am happy to debate this with the noble Lord some other time. There are some labour shortages in the hospitality sector, as there are in others. We want to get the message across that industry needs to invest in workers from this country, rather than relying just on immigration all the time.

Lord Addington: My Lords, following up on that last question, would the Minister like to decide in the short term where he will get his workers from? If the industry contracts, there will be nowhere for them to go and we will all lose. Could he comment on that?

Lord Callanan: It is not necessarily the case that the industry is contracting: this year, revenues were ahead of where they were before the pandemic. There are some businesses closing and others are opening, and employment is up since before the pandemic.

Lord Kamall: My Lords, a few noble Lords have referred to the impact of Brexit. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that, when it comes to future immigration policy, whether for the hospitality sector or others, we look not only to white Europe but to non-white, non-Europe, to make sure that we no longer have a racist immigration policy?

Lord Callanan: My noble friend makes an important point. We need to have a fair and balanced immigration policy, treating all parts of the world equally.

Lord Woodley: My Lords, I declare an interest, in that many thousands of workers in the hospitality industry are members of my union, Unite. As the Minister knows, new figures show that one in seven jobs in this sector are now completely unfilled. It is impeding businesses dramatically, to the tune of 16% of their revenues, and reducing productivity and potential profits—profits are falling by the wayside. Does the Minister therefore support the industry’s call to lower visa requirements, as other noble Lords have mentioned before, to help address the chronic staff shortages, reduce VAT to 10% for 12 months, as has been mentioned, and continue the energy support for at least the next 12 months.

Lord Callanan: I know that the Home Office keeps all visa policies under review. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will leave the setting of VAT to the Chancellor, but I am sure he has heard the call that the noble Lord has made.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, will my noble friend look favourably on keeping the alcohol duties at their current levels while the hospitality industry continues to suffer due to the crisis we are currently experiencing?

Lord Callanan: Again, I know that the Chancellor keeps alcohol duty levels under constant review. I am sure that I am the same as all other noble Lords, who would love to see them reduced, but if you raise this with the Treasury, it will say that it has lots of demands for tax and duty reductions and not many people offering to increase others to make up for them.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, can we stress the scale and extent of the problem that we are discussing right now? Last month, 320 food services were forced to initiate corporate insolvency procedures, 41% more than in the same month in 2019, pre-Covid. Overall, in 2022, the hospitality sector contracted by 5%, with almost 5,000 venues closing, nine out of 10 of which were independent. This is incredibly damaging, not only to the wider economy, as well as the communities they serve, but particularly to all those who have lost their livelihoods. What urgent steps are the Government taking to help this vital sector recover and rebuild?

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness makes an important point. Any business going under is regrettable and a tragedy for all those involved, but we must not exaggerate the problem. Following sharp decline throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, output has now recovered in the hospitality sector. In December 2022, it was about 8.5% above 2019 levels. We are continuing to offer support to the sector with energy bills and business rates relief.

Baroness Doocey: My Lords, will the Government prioritise the expansion of the youth mobility scheme visa to our European neighbours? This would help enormously with the huge number of vacancies in the tourism sector, and it would also provide opportunities for British businesses in Europe.

Lord Callanan: As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Home Office keeps visa policies under constant review. Where there are demonstrable shortages of labour in certain sectors, I am sure that the Home Secretary and other Ministers will want to look closely at them.

Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, one of the problems affecting the tourism industry is the lack of tax-free shopping. We are sending people to France and Italy when they should be coming here, at a time when our hotels and hospitality industry need that business. Will the Minister commit to reconsidering that policy and looking at the effects of it?

Lord Callanan: Again, noble Lords are tempting me to go down the path of Treasury policy. I know that the Chancellor has heard many of the representations  that were made to him about tax-free shopping. If he has anything to announce, I am sure we will hear about it in the Budget.

Baroness Foster of Oxton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the unemployment figures are low, which is a good sign, there are still 1.5 million people who are claiming unemployment benefit. What can the Government do to really ensure that every effort is being made to get these people back to work?

Lord Callanan: My noble friend makes an important point, and it links in well with some of the other questions that we considered. Before we reach for the easy solution of immigration, we want to make sure that all opportunities are offered to people who are already in this country and that those who are unemployed and claiming benefits can get back into work. That would be a great thing, and we will do all we can to assist that process.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister answered the first Question by telling us about all the sources of economic information that his department collected on the hospitality industry. Subsequently, he has told us that he is concerned about the economic costs, and he quoted a precise figure of the costs of the transport disputes on the hospitality sector. What is his department’s assessment—plus or minus—of the economic effects of leaving the European Union?

Lord Callanan: The figure I quoted was based on anecdotal evidence that was given to us, but there are lots of different figures flying around for all sorts of different impacts. The biggest impact, of course, was from the Covid pandemic, and clearly energy price rises have had an impact. We keep all of these matters under review.

Levelling Up Fund
 - Question

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the efficacy of the process for bidding to the Levelling Up Fund.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, across both rounds, the levelling-up fund has awarded £3.8 billion to 216 successful areas. This will deliver vital infrastructure projects across the UK. The competitive nature of the fund plays an important role in driving up the quality of the  bids. Only the strongest bids were shortlisted. In the second round, we prioritised high-quality bids in places that had not previously received LUF investment. This has maximised the spread of the funding, recognising that lots of places are in need of investment.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, four days ago, Andy Street, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, called for an end to the “broken begging bowl culture”. Can the Minister explain why the begging bowl is one of the preferred delivery arms when it comes to levelling up?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, it is not a begging bowl culture; it is that we have a finite amount of money to spend on capital projects across this country. The only fair and transparent way of finding the best bids to deliver the most for the United Kingdom has to be through a bidding process.

Lord Sahota: My Lords, some councils have spent millions on consultancy fees to make a bid for levelling-up funding. Some of those councils were unsuccessful and the consultancy firms were the winners. Does the Minister believe it is wise to get our communities to fight each other, where someone must lose?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, no, I do not, and I do not think it is necessary to employ expensive consultants to do the bidding. Local authorities know what is important in their areas and they have officers who can put forward bids. The Government will support them. It is a very clear and transparent process.

Lord Deben: Does my noble friend accept that local authorities spend a great deal of time working out bids right across the board, instead of seeking to use that money in the way that is needed locally? Although I agree with her argument, there is widespread dissatisfaction among local authorities with the way that it works at the moment. Would it not be a good idea if the Government looked at whether there was a better way of doing it?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I agree with some of my noble friend’s views. If I remember rightly, I answered a similar question yesterday from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and said that the Government are committed to reducing the complexities of local government funding, as set out in the levelling up White Paper.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, in response to a question earlier, the Minister said that the assessment was made by excluding those councils that had already received funding. Were those councils told before they spent huge sums of money to make bids that they would be excluded at the first step? Secondly, how many of the Government’s 139 council priority areas have not yet received any money?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness; I have a list here, but I could not say how many have not had any funding. What I can say is that the officials dealing with this funding will discuss process issues in particular with local authorities before they put in bids.

Lord Watts: My Lords, the Government claim that the bidding process is fair. Can the Minister explain to the House why Knowsley, one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, received nothing, yet the Prime Minister’s area received £20 million for a park scheme?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, no, I cannot, except to say that one bid must have been better than another. I understand that unsuccessful applicants will be disappointed, but I am pleased to say that we have confirmed that there will be a third round of the fund. Further details will be set out in due course.

Lord Haselhurst: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a bid at this stage to improve access to our ports would be timely and should almost speak for itself in obtaining favour?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, my noble friend is probably correct in that. I would encourage any ports that need better access to make them even better, particularly if they are freeports, to look at the third round of bidding.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, given that the Minister at least expressed some interest in the possibility of some kind of reconsideration of the process in response to the question from her noble friend, might it be in her mind to do so before the third round of levelling up?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: No, my Lords. Anybody who knows anything about local government funding knows that this has been looked at by many Governments over many years, but we are committed, in the levelling up White Paper, to look at the complexity of this and to try to make it a better system.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, I put on record my appreciation of the fact that the Government have helped the slate quarrying communities of north-west Wales, but can the Minister clarify whether the fact that the money allocated to that and other schemes has to be used within two years means that it has to be committed within two years or actually has to be spent? If it is the latter, there could be problems in meeting the timescale because of some of the constraints on availability and factors within the economy.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: First, I say congratulations to Wales on getting the highest amount per capita out of this round. I am sorry; I will have to  get an answer to that. I do not know the detail of the agreement, but I will make sure I get an answer to the noble Lord.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the Minister did not answer one specific question. Were the no-hopers, those who had received money before, warned in advance that they had no chance and spared the effort of putting in a bid?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, I am sure that once they put in an expression of interest for the bids—because it is in two rounds—they would have been told the rules for that second round of bidding.

Lord Kamall: Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what thinking there has been in her department about local government finance in the long term? Has there been any investigation of, for example, encouraging local authorities in the longer term to raise more of their own revenue locally, rather than constantly relying on central government? We have seen centralisation over successive Governments over the years.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, with some of the devolution deals that have been done, and will be done in future, that is one of the issues we are talking to local government about and encouraging it to do.

Lord Rooker: How many rounds can there be before the next election? It is unclear to me, local government and those who watch what government does. The third round popped up after the complaints about the second round so, for transparency, should we not have a specific date for the third round to ensure there is no manipulation of the date, configured to the next general election? It is a sensible point to raise, because the allegations will be repeated each time. What is to stop a fourth found at the very last minute? Can the Minister please explain the techniques used?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I cannot explain the techniques. All I am aware of—we have made it very clear—is that there will be a third round. It is best to note that 45% of all the awards so far have gone to opposition councils.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, on 21 December last year, the Minister told me in a Written Answer that the bid on behalf of Marple community hub was being “assessed”. Well, it failed to make the grade. Will she undertake to publish the assessments of both the failed and the successful schemes so that, as she said, a fair and transparent process can be seen by all?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, no, I cannot agree to do that because I think we would need to talk to those local authorities before we put anything like that out in the public domain. It is transparent. You can see on GOV.UK exactly how decisions are made and the processes for giving those grants.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a money Bill, and read a first time.

Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022
 - Motion to Approve

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 October 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Motion agreed.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Moved by Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Order laid before the House on 7 December 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Motion agreed.

Prepayment Meters
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 23 January.
“The Government recognise the importance of protecting customers, including those on a prepayment meter. That is why this weekend, the Secretary of State set out a five-point plan on prepayment meters. He wrote to energy suppliers to call on them to take every step to support consumers in difficulty. The Government want much greater effort from suppliers to help consumers in payment difficulty, including offers of additional credit, debt forgiveness and tools such as debt advice. Suppliers have been asked to commit to stop moving households to a prepayment meter wherever possible, and to reveal the number of warrants they have applied for in recent months, as part of a drive to increase transparency around prepayment meter installations.
There are reports that the courts are handling batches of applications for warrants, so the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with Ofgem and the Ministry of Justice—I am pleased to have beside me the courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my honourable friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, Mike Freer—to ensure that the process by which suppliers bring such cases to court is fair and transparent and supports vulnerable customers.
The Government have urged suppliers to take action to increase the number of vouchers being redeemed under the Government’s energy bills support scheme. We have published a list of supplier redemption rates, showing who is best meeting their responsibilities and those who need to do more.
The Secretary of State has written to Ofgem, asking it to do more to ensure that suppliers protect vulnerable consumers, including by revisiting its approach to the enforcement of supplier compliance and through the urgent publication of the outcomes of recent investigations into vulnerable customers. I will meet energy suppliers, Ofgem, Energy UK and Citizens Advice later this week to discuss these matters further. Those actions come on top of the Government’s unprecedented cost of living support, including the £400 discount under the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, which will save a typical household—on top of that £400—£900 this winter, with equivalent support in Northern Ireland.
Finally, we are considering a new approach to consumer protection. The Government will work with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach, including options such as social tariffs, as part of wider retail market reforms.”

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, Citizens Advice has reported shocking stories of families having their homes forcibly entered and left disrupted after forced installation of prepayment meters, at a time when they are already anxious about the cost of energy and making ends meet, with no certainty of the situation improving. The Government are right to conduct a review, but how does the Minister justify allowing this practice to continue in the meantime?

Lord Callanan: Well, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government recognise the importance of protecting customers, including those on a prepayment meter. This weekend, the Secretary of State set out a five-point plan on prepayment meters. He wrote to energy suppliers, calling on them to take every possible step to support consumers in difficulty. The Government want to see much greater effort from suppliers to help consumers who have payment problems, including offers of additional credit, debt forgiveness or tools such as debt advice. It is worth bearing in mind that the licence conditions set out that forcible prepayment installation should happen only as the absolute last possible resort.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, there is an irony here when it comes to prepayments, in that those who are worst off have to pay more because prepayment customers pay heavier tariffs than those on direct debit or other means of payment. Surely, this is a fundamental unfairness and one that creates even greater fuel poverty. Should there not be regulations to equalise the costs to consumers?

Lord Callanan: I say to the noble Lord that prepayment customers do not pay higher tariffs than other customers. They pay slightly more because of  the cost of servicing prepayment meters. It is an important distinction. If we were to equalise the cost, that would mean that other customers would pay more to service that, and many other customers in fuel poverty are on credit meters—so I am afraid that there is no easy answer to this problem.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, will my noble friend take back to his department the need not only to look at the forcible installation of prepayment meters but the installation of smart meters? An elderly gentleman I know, living alone, had a smart meter installed. He did not wish that, but it was forced on him. It was installed somewhere he could not see it. He had to climb on to a stepladder to operate it. Inadvertently, he had not paid his bill and he was cut off and left without heating, lighting, computing or a telephone for days and ended up calling an ambulance because his smart meter had let him down. Can my noble friend assure us that any investigation for vulnerable customers will include smart meter installation as well?

Lord Callanan: I say to my noble friend that I would like to hear more about that case, because I can see a number of potential problems with what she had to say. First, nobody is forced to accept a smart meter. I am the Minister responsible for smart meters and I know that it is the policy that is maintained. Secondly, if you have a smart meter, you do not need to look at the smart meter—that is the whole principle of it. You have a separate display unit, which will provide you with the information that you need. So I would be interested to hear more about that particular case if my noble friend would let me know.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, the Minister said that he was not aware of anyone who had been forced to have a smart meter, but, as far as I know, all new social housing tenants are being forced, whatever the methods are, to have smart meters. A number of families in the east London area have contacted me since these issues have been made public. They are saying that they are aware that the cost is considerably more than for their neighbours, who do not have them. Will the Minister ensure, whatever the review is, that the public are made aware that this is a more costly option and that they have the right to the option that is the most affordable for those who cannot afford these very expensive smart meters?

Lord Callanan: I am sorry, but the noble Baroness is absolutely wrong. First, nobody is forced to have a smart meter. Secondly, if you have a smart meter, you pay the same tariff. There is no difference in cost just because of the particular meter you have. Smart meters are, in my view, a great innovation and provide a lot of comfort and ease for consumers—but there is no difference in the tariffs between normal meters and smart meters.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that prepayment meters lose the option of the direct debit reduction, so those customers are actually paying a premium rate? Also, in Committee on the Energy Bill, I mooted the idea of  a social tariff for the most vulnerable customers, which the Government are now looking at. Will my noble friend bring forward amendments on Report in that regard?

Lord Callanan: As I said, people pay slightly more for prepayment meters because of the cost to suppliers of servicing those customers. The issue of social tariffs is of course different. I have had this debate with my noble friend before. We had a system of social tariffs that was replaced by the warm home discount, which was found to be a better way of supporting vulnerable customers. But, of course, we will continue to look at the issues.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I feel as though I have to state the blindingly obvious, which is that being asked to pay more for servicing a prepayment meter that you do not want is not fair. To anyone in the normal world, saying that the tariff is the same just makes the Minister sound like someone who does not understand the normal world. Ordinary people are paying more for a prepayment meter that they do not want but which is being imposed on them, and they are the people who have the least money. It is ludicrous.

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness says I do not understand, but I have lived in properties with prepayment meters and I very much understand the issues. No one is forced to have a smart meter or a pre- payment meter, either, except in the limited circumstances that I have outlined, particularly for customers who are in levels of debt, and we have put in place a number of measures to try to reduce that as much as possible. I have outlined the steps that we are taking with suppliers to make sure that those are imposed on customers only in the last possible circumstances.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the argument that the Minister has trotted out, that it costs more to sustain customers who are on prepayment meters and that is why they pay more, is of course based on the days—I remember writing about this 40 years ago—when people used to put coins in the machine and then somebody had to come and empty the box. That necessarily cost the suppliers more. Nowadays, however, people have to go and have their key recharged and pay in advance, so the companies are getting the money earlier than they do for everyone else on a credit meter. So why are these customers paying more?

Lord Callanan: I am well aware of how the system works. The fact remains that to put in place commissions to shops and others that sell the credit to service prepayment customers over those who pay via direct debit costs suppliers more. Under the licence conditions that have existed for many years, suppliers are permitted to recover what it costs to operate those particular customers.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, anybody who has been a constituency Member of Parliament knows that forcible entry into a home is a terrifying experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked an extremely  simple question: could this not be suspended until inquiries are complete? Why can the Minister not give an affirmative answer to that question?

Lord Callanan: Because none of these matters is simple. We have called on the suppliers to impose a voluntary moratorium, and we are working with them to try to implement that, but, of course, if we do that there are other options for suppliers, involving bailiffs and various other methods of collecting debt that are also not to be recommended. These are difficult issues that we have to deal with. To get a warrant requires a process through a magistrates’ court and, if a person wishes to object, they can go along and get their case heard by a magistrate.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, if the suppliers will not help, what are the Government going to do to help the people who cannot afford this?

Lord Callanan: The Government have put in place a considerable package of support, involving tens of billions of pounds of price support, which applies to prepayment customers as well as to others. Nobody denies that this is a difficult time, with energy prices being so expensive, but the noble and learned Baroness is well aware of the package of support that we have offered.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the i newspaper has shown that thousands of cases are being put through magistrates’ courts without any proper assessment of the case at all, with no one having the opportunity to put their case. The Minister is doing a lot of urging of energy companies to do the right thing, but, if the imposition of prepayment meters on vulnerable households continues, at what point would the Government be willing to take effective action? How many people have to go cold before that point comes?

Lord Callanan: Warrants are put through in bulk only when they are not contested. People are informed of applications to courts and, if they wish to contest the application, they are entitled to a separate hearing and their arguments will be heard by the magistrate. That is how justice works in the UK.

Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 23 January.
“To start with ministerial appointments, appointments made to His Majesty’s Government are a matter solely for the Prime Minister in line with his constitutional position as the Sovereign’s principal adviser and the head of the Government. It is for the Prime Minister to recommend individuals for appointment. In considering potential appointments, the Prime Minister may receive advice from the Civil Service on matters of propriety  and potential conflicts of interest. The Civil Service has no role in approving or vetoing appointments as appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the advice that may be given during the appointments process.
It is critical that all Prime Ministers are able to receive advice in confidence. I would not want to do anything to erode that ability. Once an appointment is made, the process for the management of conflicts of interest and potential conflicts is clear and robust, and follows the processes set out in the Ministerial Code. It is the responsibility of all Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their role and their private interests, financial or otherwise. That is ultimately incumbent on the individual and it is clearly set out in the Ministerial Code. Ministers should declare and manage potential conflicts of interest, working with their Permanent Secretary and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. They are under an ongoing duty to further declare relevant changes to their interests.
Honourable Members will be aware that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Laurie Magnus as his independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. Sir Laurie will be taking forward the work on the declaration of Ministers’ interests in line with his published terms of reference. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, the independent adviser will also be conducting an investigation to establish the facts surrounding the matters concerning my right honourable friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, Nadhim Zahawi, that have been subject to media reports over the weekend. I know that Sir Laurie will bring integrity and rigour to the role of independent adviser and the outcome of his work will be made public in due course.”

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: My Lords, it is vital that we get the terms of reference right on this investigation. Will it include Mr Zahawi’s use of legal threats to supress media reporting? Will the independent adviser examine why, according to the Information Commissioner’s investigation, Mr Zahawi deleted texts from his phone relating to Lex Greensill’s Covid loans application? Greensill Bank went on to lend seven times the loan limit to companies headed by Mr Sanjeev Gupta. A business associate of Mr Gupta also thanked the then BEIS Minister, Mr Zahawi, for his role in securing these loans. Does the Minister know if Mr Zahawi advised Greensill to put in multiple applications, and will this matter also be investigated?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, there are established procedures for the appointment of Ministers, and by Ministers, and these are followed. This was the purport of the question we are replying to, and we need to allow the process to run its course. As the noble Baroness suggests, the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Laurie Magnus, who is the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. As I said when I answered questions last year, the Prime Minister was then moving quickly to appoint the independent adviser. The terms of reference will  give the independent adviser the opportunity to look into what he thinks needs to be looked into—having a look at the issues that have been raised and speculated on—and we have made clear that anyone in the Government should help the independent adviser with that process. On the point about the texts, the Information Commissioner has looked at that. He concluded his investigation on 18 January this year—so, last week—and he did not require any steps to be taken. He considered that BEIS had conducted sufficient searches for the relevant information.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend that any public concern about ministerial interests will be greatly alleviated if the independent adviser could, of his own initiative, institute investigations?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The independent adviser, as my noble friend suggests, is appointed by the Prime Minister and it his constitutional position to be the ultimate arbiter of the Ministerial Code, and to decide whether a breach of the code has occurred upon the advice of the independent adviser. So it makes sense for the Prime Minister to be the ultimate decision-maker, but, of course, we have appointed Sir Laurie Magnus to take on this role and to look extremely carefully at the issues that have arisen and been reported on this week.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the last Prime Minister but three made great play of the distinction between “people from somewhere” and “people from anywhere”. I thought, at the time, that the real people from anywhere were those who try to avoid paying their taxes and arrange their financial affairs somewhere else—in offshore financial centres and elsewhere. Could the Minister assure us that part of the questioning of the suitability of people for ministerial appointments should significantly include questions about offshore financial arrangements and tax avoidance?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: There is an established procedure that anyone who is fortunate enough to be appointed a Minister goes through, and that includes a number of questions. Indeed, when candidates are put forward to HOLAC for the House of Lords, that is also the case. Tax is one of the areas of questioning but, in relation to today’s debate, clearly the independent adviser will be looking into these matters. It is clear that the Prime Minister became aware of media reports, but when the Minister without Portfolio was appointed, he was told that there were no outstanding issues. Obviously, the details of an individual’s tax affairs are confidential, but this is an important area of inquiry.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, we should never lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a truly remarkable person, whose life story is exceptional and who is an incredible example to all ethnic minorities in this country. Bearing this in mind, should we not await Sir Laurie’s report and not prejudge the issue?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I have to say that my noble friend is completely right. We must find out what the facts are; the independent adviser is looking into this. We need due process. That is why the Prime Minister is ensuring that we look at the actions that were taken. It is also why we have the independent adviser who has now been appointed, which I think has been welcomed right across the House.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, is it not the case that while officials may bring to the Prime Minister’s attention matters within their knowledge bearing on ministerial appointments, they must have regard to the laws governing personal privacy, including privacy on tax matters?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The noble Lord is right. The other point worth making is that, as a Minister, it is your personal responsibility to make it known to your Permanent Secretary and, if appropriate, to the independent adviser, what conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest you might have. This is a process that is gone through scrupulously, in my experience, when Ministers are appointed.

Lord Sikka: My Lords, transparency is the biggest antidote to sleaze, which revolves around money. The best way of dealing with this is to ensure that all Ministers publish their tax returns. That policy can be made without waiting for any report from the independent ethics adviser. What objections can the Minister have to that suggestion?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: There is an issue of balance between privacy and the need to know—the transparency. I have often engaged with the noble Lord on these tax issues and the Prime Minister himself has said that he will publish his tax return, but moving to a different system raises quite a lot of issues of balance. I come back to my point about personal responsibility and explaining where there are these issues or might be conflicts of interest when you are a Minister, or if circumstances change.

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Is it not the case that it is very important that any Prime Minister of the day has an independent ethics adviser and an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments? What is the point of having these officials doing those jobs unless they are allowed to get on with them—do the jobs they are paid and appointed to do—and avoid the speculation, which is completely unfounded until the facts are known?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank my noble friend. Sir Laurie Magnus is doing just that. He was appointed in December and now has an important case to look into. We need to give him time to look at the issues that have been raised and come to the Prime Minister with a summary of his findings, so that we can move forward. But we need to establish the facts because, unfortunately, everything you read in the newspapers is not always spot on.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, the Minister has laid great emphasis on due process, which we understand, and there is an inquiry going on, which we understand. Will she agree voluntarily to bring to the House a Statement once the outcome of this investigation is known?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Statements to the House are a matter for the usual channels. However, given the interest in this matter it is quite possible for noble Lords to raise Questions, and Statements are often made on important matters of the day. I cannot make a specific promise, of course, but I understand where the noble Viscount is coming from, and that the House wishes to know and to be kept informed.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Minister said, in reply to an earlier question, that it was a constitutional principle that the ultimate authority for the Ministerial Code lay with the Prime Minister, but in what way would it be unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to give the independent adviser the right to initiate his own investigations?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I think that that would change the set of balances that exists at the moment. The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has been very clear on the importance of accountability, integrity and professionalism, and he reissued the code with his own words to encourage that. He has also asked the independent adviser to explore the issues surrounding this particular case and to report the findings to him. I do not think that we need to move as far as the noble Baroness is suggesting, but we need to come to the right answers on these issues. It really matters that people trust our system of parliamentary democracy.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
 - Committee (1st Day)

Relevant documents: 9th and 20th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 5th Report from the Constitution Committee, 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Motion

Lord Caine: Moved by Lord Caine
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by Baroness O'Loan
At end insert “but that the House should not be invited to read the Bill a third time until the Northern Ireland Assembly has agreed a Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill”.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, policing and justice were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2009, years after other areas of governance. How to  handle Northern Ireland’s legacy of pain has been a source of contention for decades, for reasons which are well known. Despite that, agreement was reached in principle in the Stormont House agreement of 2014, the terms of which were compliant with all international legal obligations and the rule of law, of which the UK is so proud. For a variety of reasons, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not yet legislated a way forward, although the content of the agreement is largely accepted in Northern Ireland. We do not have an Assembly at the moment, the reasons for which your Lordships are very well informed about. However, in July 2021, a Motion rejecting the proposals contained in the Government’s Command Paper on legacy, which led to the Bill now before your Lordships’ House, was passed without any dissent by the Northern Ireland Assembly; the Motion was accepted by the Assembly.
When the Government legislate on a matter which has been devolved, the Sewel convention—of course, it is only a convention—requires that the Government seek legislative consent from each devolved Administration affected by the legislation. There has been no legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Bill we will discuss today. My amendment to the Government’s Motion is very simple: it requires that a legislative consent Motion be secured before the Bill goes to Third Reading.
The reasons for that are equally simple. The Bill has been rejected by every political party in Northern Ireland and by the churches, victims’ groups and other individuals, human rights organisations, the Northern Ireland victims’ commissioner, victims’ organisations—such as the cross-community group WAVE, which has done magnificent work to help those who have suffered so grievously during the Troubles—and veterans’ organisations. The Minister has himself admitted that he has not met anyone who actually wants it to be enacted; he has encountered constant opposition to the Bill. It has been seriously criticised by the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, whose role is to advise government, because it is not compliant with the UK’s international legal obligations or with the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. There has been a total failure to consult victims and survivors properly and to respond meaningfully, even at this stage, to their very real objections and concerns.
The Government and the Bill have been seriously criticised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, the Irish Government, the United States State Department and UN special rapporteurs, who warned that the Bill would place the UK in flagrant breach of its international human rights obligations. Last Thursday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights criticised it in trenchant terms, and, again, Members of the US Congress wrote to the Prime Minister about this yesterday, I believe. The Bill deprives survivors and victims of the Troubles of their fundamental legal rights. The Government’s legal obligations under these measures are being set aside in the Bill.
The Supreme Court set out the ECHR obligations very simply in December 2021, in its judgment in relation to the application by McQuillan and others:
“As the State has a general duty under article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, the combination of articles 1 and 2 requires by implication that there be some form of official investigation when individuals have been killed by the use of force … The essential purpose of such an investigation is two-fold. It is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws that protect the right to life; and, in cases involving State agents or bodies, it is to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility … A similar duty of investigation arises under article 3 of the Convention where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment”.
Under the Bill, people will no longer be able to go to a coroner’s court for an inquest to determine where, when and how their loved ones died, even when inquests have already been scheduled—a cruel move. Inquests have been enormously important in unpicking the web of deception that has permeated so much of the proceedings of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. One example is the recent inquest into the deaths in Ballymurphy in August 1971. For decades, it was said that those who were killed there had been involved in terrorism, yet, in May 2021, 50 years after the event, it was found that the 10 people who died there on those fateful August days were unarmed civilians who had posed no threat. Nine were killed by members of the Parachute Regiment, but it was not possible to prove who had shot the 10th person dead. For over 1,000 years, inquests have enabled people, through a judicial process, to seek to know when, where and how people died. That will no longer be the case in Northern Ireland for those died between 1966 and 1998 if the Bill is passed.
During the Troubles, many cases were not investigated for a variety of reasons, and perpetrators were not prosecuted. Those reasons included the need to protect informants. It is fundamental and vital to protect those who assist the forces of law and order in protecting against atrocities. But, on many occasions, those same informants were involved in murder and the most serious of crimes, and they were allowed to continue to be involved in terrorism, both republican and loyalist. I have reported on many such cases. It seems impossible now, but it happened; people died, lives were wrecked and hearts were broken.
Now, in the Bill, the Government propose to remove the obligations that exist in law, domestic and international, and to deprive victims and survivors of proper investigation in the fullest sense and of any meaningful reconciliation. The Bill will also remove the right to bring civil actions for damages for injury and death resulting from the Troubles. Such actions have been critical in uncovering the truth about deaths and serious harm to people caused by terrorists, some of whom were state informants working with paramilitary groups such as the IRA and the UVF. Many such civil actions were settled in the courts and upheld. If the Bill passes, these actions will no longer be possible.
The Bill will introduce conditional immunity, which, to quote the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking last week,
“would likely be at variance with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish those found responsible for serious human rights violations”.
This Bill has been rejected by virtually everyone. The Assembly has not had the opportunity to comment on its content; it comprises multiple breaches of the UK’s obligations under domestic and international law; and it does not have the consent of the people affected by its provisions—those whose loved ones died, or were seriously injured, in places such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Hyde Park, Warrenpoint, Enniskillen and so many other places. It will deprive the UK of its reputation as a state in which the rule of law is respected and upheld. I beg to move.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, with which I am bound to say that I have very great sympathy, although for different reasons from those advanced by the noble Baroness. I would like the Assembly to consider the propriety of the linkage between what is, in effect, an amnesty and the establishment of and participation in the commission. I happen to think that those are wholly different issues and should not be linked.
As it happens, I am an agnostic on the question of the commission, but I am not an agnostic on the question of a statute of limitations—an amnesty. I feel very strongly in favour of it. There should be a statute of limitations to preclude prosecutions in respect of any crimes alleged to have been committed and connected with terrorism prior to the Good Friday agreement. There are a number of pragmatic reasons for that, which I am not going to trouble noble Lords with, but there is an essential concern that I have: I believe that it is offensive and a serious abuse of process for servicemen to be prosecuted for alleged offences while at the same time many people who have been, or are alleged to have been, involved in the commission of terrorist offences have been admitted to high political office. I find the letters of comfort offensive if servicemen are to be prosecuted. I look at Mr Martin McGuinness, who served as Deputy First Minister; it seems that he did participate in serious offences. Given all that, can it be right to prosecute servicemen, when in all probability their level of culpability is lower?
It is in my view an abuse of process to do so, and it is for that reason that I want to see a statute of limitations that covers all offences. I do not think that it is possible, in law or practice, to make a distinction between those who are alleged to have been terrorists and servicepeople. I do not think that that distinction is possible, so it has to be a general statute of limitations. I would like the Assembly to discuss this matter, although I am bound to say that I think that the outcome is likely to be different from that which I would wish.

Lord Eames: My Lords, in producing this amendment, the noble Baroness is representing the widespread frustration that exists in Northern Ireland in the light of this proposed legislation. Speaking from my experience and years of service to Northern Ireland, I have never come across such widespread opposition to a proposal such as this as is the case today. A lot of that frustration, I have to say to His Majesty’s Government, is caused by their failure to produce the amendments to this legislation that they had promised. They made a solemn promise to this House and the other House  that they would take very seriously the expressions of frustration that many of us had brought to the Floor of this House and to the other place. We are disappointed in the result and the failure to fulfil that promise.
The failure of this legislation to have at its heart the needs of survivors and victims and their families and loved ones is a total disaster. Because of the way this new commission is proposed to operate, many people in Northern Ireland are going to be denied justice and denied the opportunity to be heard. I speak from many years’ experience of pastoral service to the people of Northern Ireland when I say that this is nothing less than a tragedy.
It is for those reasons that so many of us have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. No one knows better than she does, from her public service, what the feelings of opposition amount to in Northern Ireland at the present time. I appeal to those noble Lords who have serious concerns, who do not live in Northern Ireland, who have not experienced what we have come through; I appeal to them to see the opposition to this legislation as a matter of right and wrong, for it is, I believe, verging on a moral issue.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I want to say briefly why I support this amendment. I must declare an interest in that I am a military veteran who served for a long time in Northern Ireland and members of my family were in the police.
Veterans are, inevitably, really against the Bill, but I think one ought to accept that veterans are not just people like me and not just their families: they are our societies. If you take rural areas like where I come from, a village or a locality, those societies have become veterans of the Troubles. If you do not live there, you do not know how completely the lives of everybody who wanted peace were changed. It is not restricted to the brothers, sisters and parents who waited for their family members, whether they be police, prison officers or simply, like one of my soldiers, driving a lorry that was providing cement to build security posts. This is not a funny thing where people were in the Army or the police, now they are out of it and it is all finished: this is a whole society, and it really affects people. They are 100% against this, as are other victims who may not be totally related at that stage.
Imagine a small village. In one case, one of my soldiers drove a school bus. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is not here today, but she was a child on that bus. One of my soldiers drove it and he kept the bus at home: it was the most secure place. He searched under the bus every morning. His son helped him do so. They watched them do it. The place that was most difficult to search was behind the engine block on the other side. They put the bomb there. He got into his bus, he drove for a distance, he picked up children and the bomb went off. Luckily, the noble Baroness was towards the back. One of my other soldiers, plus one of the children and others who were on the bus, were injured. That child nearly lost its arm. But the next year, my soldier and his son committed suicide, because he had not searched the bus. So this is not just about veterans, but this Bill is seen as leaning the other way, and that is that.
It is an opportunity for Sinn Féin and the terrorists following, or whatever, to investigate the records that were kept by the police of every incident, through records of everything. But on the return side, there is not so much as a written note on a cigarette packet; that is how they planned their business, because at road checks, they could be searched, so they wrote it on little pieces of paper. Those are all gone. I ask Members of this House to remember that this is not something far away; this is part of the United Kingdom. It is whole societies that have been wrecked, and now this is putting the cap on the whole thing.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for tabling this amendment to the Motion to move into Committee. It provides us with the opportunity to once again ask the Government to consider very carefully how they wish to proceed, given the level of opposition that there is to this Bill, which has again been laid bare in the contributions that we have heard from those from Northern Ireland already this afternoon.
The Minister, about whose personal integrity I have no doubt whatever, is fronting for the Government on this issue, and he did give a commitment that the Government would take their time before proceeding, or would move very carefully and consider amendments —and some amendments have been forthcoming. But I would urge the Minister to think very carefully about what has been said already, and also what has been said over the previous months since the Bill was published.
We have been told repeatedly throughout the period of what is euphemistically called “the Troubles” that the victims should be at the centre of any process which is about legacy, truth recovery, justice and so on. It is very clear that victims have been treated abominably by this Bill and by this Government, and that is a terrible thing to have to say about a Government who are committed to the union—although their actions in recent times, both in the protocol and on this, would cause many unionists to doubt what exactly is now going on with the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is certainly not the case for all members of that party, and certainly not all parliamentarians, but at the centre there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with how Northern Ireland is now being treated as part of this United Kingdom. This is one of the most egregious examples of where victims and their views are being set aside. There is universal opposition, yet this Government are intent on proceeding.
I appeal to the Government: listen to the victims. We heard the noble Baroness mention various organisations, institutions, foreign bodies, and all the rest of it, and I have respect for very many of them. However, I do make the point that some of these people now speaking out against this Bill supported, against the views of victims in Northern Ireland, the proposals to reduce the length of any sentence on conviction of the most heinous terrorist crimes, some of which we have heard about just now, to two years, and to allow those who have already served two years to walk free. Regardless of that, we should listen to the victims and, even now, pause, and urge the Government to withdraw and not move into Committee.
Victims have listened very carefully to the voices that have been raised in opposition to this Bill, and among the voices that have been raised are the voices of the victim-makers. We have the appalling situation where the representatives of terrorist organisations, who glorify and eulogise murder and the murderers—I am talking about Sinn Féin—have the audacity to come out and use this piece of legislation to bash the Government. Their support for victims is mock support: it is a pretence. Their agenda is completely different. They are pocketing the concession for their members, and those who carried out violence, then turning it to bash the Government.
So the Government cannot win on this. They are in the invidious position of doing something that has no support across the board. Therefore, I urge them to withdraw the Bill. They need to counter the twisted narrative of the Troubles that is out there, and to be more proactive in terms of the balance of the past. There is a widely shared view in Northern Ireland that there is an imbalanced process, where the story of the terrorists and their organisations is continually played out in the media. We have had some examples of that even this week—but where is the balance, with the countless thousands of families, their extended families and their communities and neighbours who were terrified daily by the threat of terrorists living among them, spying on them and betraying them at their work?
I do not advocate looking at Twitter too much, but I urge noble Lords to look at one that talks about “on this day” and an atrocity carried out by the IRA almost every day. It details the normal day-to-day activities of ordinary people going about their daily business—dropping their children at school, driving a bus, being in a bakery, carrying out a profession—who were murdered. They were cut down by terrorists who now claim that they have the right to talk about human rights and lecture everybody else about them. The Government are doing those people, their relatives and their kith and kin such a disservice. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to think again at this stage.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, as a Member of this House coming from Northern Ireland, having represented a constituency in the other place, I—like others from Northern Ireland—have met many victims. The Troubles have imbued the lives of all of us from Northern Ireland because, in some way, we have been deeply affected, either by the deaths of loved ones or neighbours or by the destruction of property. All of that has left many victims searching for truth recovery and justice. The ordinary people I am talking about feel that the Bill robs them of their opportunity to access justice, investigations and inquests which they believe, quite rightly, is their right.
I agree that there should be a pause placed on the Bill and that the Government should go away and think again—and think in terms of the Stormont House agreement. We said this at Second Reading, but other things have happened since then. Other organisations in the human rights field have raised important considerations to be taken into account. The European Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the victims’ commissioner and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which  has a statutory responsibility in all of these areas, have all highlighted the faults in the Bill and the fact that the very premise on which it is based—immunity from prosecution—goes against the very heart of what the UK democratic system should be about, and what we as Members of your Lordships’ House should be fighting for.
I can understand what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, is talking about as a former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, and what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, as he was part of the Eames-Bradley commission which looked into this area in detail with a microscope. There is no doubt that the deaths, injuries and massacres have caused immense pain, whether to members of the security forces or to people on whatever avenue of any political perspective or whatever location they came from on the island of Ireland, as well as here in Britain. People suffered pain and anxiety and were deeply affected.
I believe that the fulfilment of rights and the rule of law must be central to the legacy process. That goes to the very heart of the Bill; immunity from prosecutions and the prevention of civil actions will not deal with what was already agreed in the Stormont House agreement and will not bring peace, justice and reconciliation. I firmly ask the Minister, who was involved with Stormont House and many other agreements to do with victims and legacy in Northern Ireland, to go back to the drawing board and the Stormont House agreement. The Bill, with the amendments, and particularly the government amendments that we will deal with later, is an exercise in denying justice. It will breach the European Convention on Human Rights and threaten the Good Friday agreement. It is bad for justice, for human rights and for the thousands of people who lost loved ones, who were injured during the Troubles, or whose property was destroyed, and who have very bad memories of what happened to them, their families, their communities and their colleagues.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, at Second Reading I made clear my own distaste for the Bill and pleaded with the Government not to proceed to Committee or Report. Of course, it is open to the Government at any stage to pull the Bill and to suspend our proceedings. My noble friend’s amendment does not do that; it says that we will proceed with Committee in the normal way. However, it says that before giving the Bill a Third Reading—which is also open to us to decide as a House—we would have a chance to pause it in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have argued in our proceedings; it would be wise for this not to go on to the statute book. This would be a way to do that.
I was grateful to the Minister for the invitation he offered to Members of your Lordships’ House to attend one of his briefing sessions—I think everyone in this House admires the diligence which he applies to his duties. However, during that meeting I had to reiterate my view that it is unwise and unnecessary to proceed with a Bill that, as we have heard again today, has united all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland and beyond.
One of my own principal reasons for opposing further progress on the Bill at this time is that, as we have heard, it has not been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is non-functioning, and so has not been considered by it. That contributes to the emasculation of power-sharing and devolution, and places in jeopardy one of the most important building blocks of the Good Friday agreement: the very formula which allows people from divergent and different parts of the community to live alongside one other and learn to honour and value each other’s traditions and experiences. Again, I plead with all sides that the Assembly be restored as soon as is humanly possible. Anything which smacks of victors or vanquished will lead to alienation and hostility, and potentially worse, which is why no effort should ever be spared to revive and restore the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I know that some would welcome the death of power-sharing and devolution and are ready to impose Westminster-baked solutions on Northern Ireland. That flies in the face of subsidiarity, is disrespectful of diversity and risks the gains which have been made. We need changes of heart and mind, not ill-considered legislation. For those reasons alone I support the amendment to the Motion that my noble friend has laid before your Lordships’ House.
Since Second Reading there have been, as the noble Baroness just told us, further developments. I have met with and heard from some of those who also have profound misgivings about the wisdom of a Bill which masquerades under the false colours of a title that claims it to be about the legacy and reconciliation of the Troubles. I met Grainne Teggart, the deputy director of Amnesty International in Northern Ireland. She has examined the government amendments and says that they
“fail to address the fundamental flaws with the Bill and do little more than tinker around the edges, so our earlier points on the failure to comply with ECHR obligations etc remain. The UK is isolated on the international stage, it is still not too late for them to do the right thing and drop the Bill. Our call remains for Government to abandon this legislation and commit to an agreed way forward”.
She and I were in agreement that the Bill should be considered first by the Assembly. She has also drawn my attention to the interventions at the end of last week by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a further US congressional call expressing grave concerns with the Bill.
In the meeting with the Minister, I echoed concerns raised by two of my noble and learned friends about the way in which the chief commissioner is to be appointed. I see from the Minister’s 17 January letter to all Peers that this has been addressed in part. However, the Minister will recall that I specifically raised the point about the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister being among those who must be consulted by the Secretary of State. They are not named in any list. Bypassing them is of a piece with bypassing the Assembly. Amnesty has expressed serious concerns with the Bill, saying it would institute a
“de facto amnesty for grave human rights violations”—
a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his intervention earlier—and that the UK Government are
“removing all paths to justice”.
As amendments are considered, the House will want to take note of those detailed objections, but I simply draw attention to the concluding paragraph 58 of the Amnesty International submission this week, urging the House to reject a Bill that is not redeemable and to revert to the Stormont House agreement. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would enable us to do that at Third Reading. Liberty also describes the Bill as “irredeemable” and says that some of the amendments will potentially make a bad Bill even worse. It says that the Bill will breach the convention and threaten the Good Friday agreement, and all for seemingly no real benefit, and that for the sake of the victims and families affected, the Government must now consider withdrawing it entirely.
I conclude with the latest position paper from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which expresses concern at the lack of broad community support. It has analysed the amendments that seek to ameliorate some of the worst provisions and strengthen safeguards—again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his genuine attempts to do that. However, in its conclusion, the commission says that the amendments
“do not address the NIHRC’s grave concerns raised in our initial advice regarding the immediate cessation of criminal investigations (other than those referred by the ICRIR”—
the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery—
“to the prosecutor), police complaints, civil proceedings and inquests/inquiries linked to Troubles-related offences. Thus, the NIHRC’s previous concerns remain.”
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The Government should take that old proverb to heart and stop trying to defy the rules of political gravity. To proceed pell-mell by putting this contested Bill on to the statute book lacks wisdom and prudence. At the very minimum, it should be considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly whenever that is reconstituted and before this goes on to the statute book. This amendment would stop it in its tracks at Third Reading, when we would have carried out our constitutional duty of scrutinising the Bill which has been laid before us. That is why I urge noble Lords to support my noble friend’s amendment to the Motion.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, during my time as chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place I came to know, respect and admire a lot of people, none more than the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—a Roman Catholic of deep faith and a police ombudsman of utter impartiality—and the man who had been Primate of All Ireland, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who is respected and indeed loved by people throughout the island of Ireland. They have both made very powerful speeches today, and we should reflect very carefully on what they and others have said.
But we are dealing with thousands of human tragedies, and this terrible legacy, without the input of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. I want to make a plea to the party politicians in Northern Ireland: for  goodness’ sake, come together and discuss. It is absurd not to because of one issue over the protocol, important as it is. They have not even discussed that. There is an Assembly, it has been elected, and an Executive could be appointed within 24 hours of its meeting. In my view, it is very important indeed that, before we go very much further forward with the Bill, the Assembly comes together and recognises its constitutional responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to make its views known on all issues of importance to them.
Of course, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would allow this House to proceed, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said a moment or two ago. On balance, I think she is right to do that, because we have a constitutional duty too. But for the Bill to pass on to the statute book without a proper input from Northern Ireland would be, to put it very mildly, deeply unfortunate. So I hope that our friends and colleagues who have influence over the Members of the Assembly, as many do, will urge them to come together and discuss. Of course, they will not agree on everything. Of course, there will be vigorous debates on the protocol. But that is the purpose of a democratically elected body.
My noble friend the Minister’s behaviour has been exemplary: he listened carefully to all that was said on Second Reading, indicated his own discomfort with the Bill—I do not think that anybody could be comfortable with it—and promised to come back with some amendments. He has done that. He is an honourable man. He knows and cares more about Northern Ireland than most people who do not live there. He has spent much of his life there and has given much of his professional career to serving its people.
We have a good Minister, a decent man, with a bad Bill. I do not think that anybody disputes that. But I think that what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said was wise and sensible. We ought to resolve that this will not go on to the statute book until the Assembly in Northern Ireland has met. It must not continue to abdicate its responsibilities. It has a duty to the people who elected it, to serve them.
So, really, the substance of my brief remarks is to appeal across the Irish Sea, to a very beautiful part of the United Kingdom which I got to know well and love deeply: please do not continue to neglect your democratic responsibilities. Let us have your views on this Bill. I suspect that they will not be very different from most of ours.

Lord Dannatt: My Lords, I realise that I run the risk of striking a discordant note in this afternoon’s debate, and I very much understand the widespread criticism of this Bill from virtually every quarter that has been identified. However, I choose to identify with the remarks made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and take issue with just one of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, when, in the list of those opposing the Bill, she mentioned veterans.
Veterans are not a homogenous group; veterans come in very different categories. I feel that this debate would be lacking if someone did not speak for UK-based veterans who, for 38 years, served and did their duty, in the main, to the utmost of their ability. Yes, of  course, there were tragedies, and errors were committed by the British Army. We know what they were, and I am not going to go into those; but the vast majority of soldiers, as we have debated in this Chamber before—I have had debates in my name making exactly these points over the years—did their duty to the best of their ability. Their voice must be heard.
We do not want, as a veteran group, to set ourselves against all the other powerful arguments against the Bill, but the voice that I speak for is the voice that has had enough of investigations being mounted on now quite elderly soldiers on the whim of evidence, often causing them a lot of fear and upset, some of them going to their grave with the allegations not fully investigated. If the Bill is intended by the Government to stop that process, it is a very blunt instrument to achieve a particular aim. On that basis, I would ask the Government to think again about the Bill, but if the Bill is lost, for all the very good reasons that people have been talking about, what must not be lost is some way for veterans who did their duty to be protected.
I am not going to personalise it; I am one of them. My colleagues and I, on the whole, did our best, serving to the best of our ability. There must be some protection for us. We tried to raise it in the context of the overseas operations Bill, but those protections were dismissed by the Government, who said we would come back to it in the Northern Ireland Bill. We are back now. If we lose this Bill, the vast majority of UK-based veterans—not all—will feel that they have been let down by the Government and that successive promises have been broken. That is the only point that I will make.

Viscount Hailsham: I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. Would he agree that, at the end of the day, we are going to have to have a statute of limitations? It has to apply to all security personnel, but because of that, I am afraid that it has also to apply to those who are alleged to have been involved in terrorist activities.

Lord Dannatt: I accept the noble Viscount’s point. I say simply that, if investigations are going to continue, and the rule of law is going to continue to be applied, I would seek for protocols to be put in place to protect the manner in which investigations were carried out and the way in which people who were required to take part in questioning were handled. I would want to ensure that their dignity, their respect, their age and their previous service were taken into due consideration. That is a minimum ask. That is a reasonable ask, and I speak on behalf of veterans who served their country in Northern Ireland over a very extended period.

Viscount Brookeborough: I suggest that the noble Lord may have meant GB-based veterans and not UK-based veterans, since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

Lord Dannatt: I accept that point entirely. I meant people such as me who live in England—I am three-quarters English and one-quarter Welsh. It is  people such as me whom I had in mind, fully accepting that veterans from Northern Ireland have a very different outlook on the whole matter—quite understandably—because they were living and working within their own homeland. I am talking about soldiers who were brought up elsewhere than in Northern Ireland. I apologise for poor use of our language.

Lord Hain: My Lords, in supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I will not repeat the cogent and compelling case she put. While Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I tried to grapple with legacy issues, which are incredibly difficult. I was bruised by them, and I had to withdraw a Bill I introduced that had been in gestation prior to my appointment because it was opposed by everybody. That is what should happen to this Bill.
However, I would have liked to support the Bill for that very reason of having grappled with these issues. I would particularly have liked to support the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, because of his commitment to Northern Ireland, his long service and the high regard in which we all hold him in this House. But the Bill is opposed by every political party in Northern Ireland, and by every victims group. They do not agree between themselves very often and they do not agree about the definition of a victim, but they agree in their total, unanimous opposition to the Bill.
Your Lordships’ House should take that into account, and, as I shall describe at some length in subsequent groupings, that there is an alternative. For the life of me, I do not know why the Government have not agreed to that alternative, which is Operation Kenova, under the leadership of former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, who is highly regarded for the way he handled this and very popular with all the victims for the truth recovery process he has managed in a consensual way, getting information that was not readily available in some cases, for reasons I will describe later. It also does not offer an amnesty, which is the most egregious part of the Bill. There is a working model. I do not understand why it is not adopted. I will move amendments, with all-party support, to try to get your Lordships’ House to back it on Report.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill, not just tweak it in the way he has with the amendments he has brought forward, as he promised. If he had been the architect of the Bill, I think it would be very different and one we could all support. There is a different model, which I will describe. I hope that it will receive the support of your Lordships’ House. Meanwhile, I support the amendment.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: My Lords, I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I am the first to acknowledge that many sensible amendments have been put forward from all sides of the House; there are also some that I would not be quite so keen on, but no matter how good some of those amendments are, they do not and indeed cannot deal with the fundamental flaws in the Bill.
Similarly—and I speak after a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to find a way forward on legacy that is acceptable to everyone. Again, I am the first to acknowledge that, but I am completely convinced that the Bill before us is not that way forward.
The noble Baroness’s amendment goes to the heart of the process because it deals with the issue of democratic legitimacy and gives this House and Parliament an opportunity, if taken, to pause for thought. There are four good reasons why we need to pause.
First, as others have indicated, the Bill does not have a level of consensus within Northern Ireland among the political parties—indeed, quite the opposite. As someone who in a previous life served for 24 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and indeed for six of those as the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly, I can say better than most that it is difficult at times to get a consensus within the Assembly. It is difficult to get a consensus in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in recent days on other issues there has been a level of debate as to what counts as sufficient consensus in Northern Ireland: is it a simple majority, or a cross-community majority? But one thing indicated by the proposer of the amendment is beyond doubt, as shown by the vote in 2021: every single party in Northern Ireland is opposed to this Bill. That is a complete consensus.
We may question in particular the bona fides of one of those parties, Sinn Féin, whose military wing inflicted violence for many years and was the biggest single contributor to deaths in Northern Ireland. But even leaving aside the fact that republicans were responsible for around 60% of the killings in Northern Ireland, nevertheless there is a complete consensus within all the parties in Northern Ireland that this is not the way forward.
Secondly, there is also a consensus among victims that this is not the way forward. As previously indicated, in the same way that veterans are not necessarily a homogeneous group with the same views on every subject, that is undoubtedly true of victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Indeed, not only do they often desire different outcomes and have different perspectives on the world, but even members of the same family of a victim of the Troubles sometimes have different views. So it is extremely rare that a consensus emerges, but it is difficult to find a single victim, let alone a single victim group, who is in favour of this as a way forward. If indeed victims are supposed to be at the centre of this, by proceeding pell-mell with this Bill we are not moving forward.
Thirdly, the Bill very clearly represents a denial of justice. When we look at the Troubles, two myths are sometimes perpetrated. They are quite lazy assumptions. The first is that everybody in Northern Ireland is a perpetrator. That is clearly not the case. The vast majority of people, from whatever side of the community, got on with their lives, tried to make progress in a democratic way and gave the lie to the idea that there was no alternative to violence.
The second myth is that everyone is Northern Ireland is also a victim. I was extremely fortunate: although I grew up throughout the entirety of the Troubles, I did not lose a family member or close friend to the Troubles. Indeed, I probably grew up in one of the safest parts  of Northern Ireland. I was able to grow up in such safety because of the bravery of veterans throughout the United Kingdom, both soldiers and police officers, in keeping that peace in Northern Ireland. I cannot claim to be a victim, which makes me particularly reluctant as a Member of this House to impose a denial of justice on victims. I would be imposing that on other people.
There is no doubt that many victims out there do not seek a particular form of justice or a conviction. It is also the case—none of us should be naive, particularly in historical cases—that the opportunities for a trial and conviction to hold somebody directly accountable for the murder of your loved one are extremely remote. I believe the Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it provides the “solution” of simply snuffing out, and taking away from families that want justice, any opportunity to have their day in court. That is the third reason why this is fundamentally flawed.
There is a final reason why we need to look at this. Understandably, when we are dealing with legacy the focus is quite often on the past and the legacy of the past, but I do not believe the Bill provides reconciliation in the future. Indeed, I believe it provides a very dangerous pathway for the future.
Unfortunately, we have already seen a younger generation in Northern Ireland—sometimes fuelled particularly by comments from those who have been supportive of terrorism—effectively trying to rewrite history. It is not unique to Northern Ireland, but the glib mantra of some people is that there is no alternative to violence, and there is an attempt retrospectively to justify that level of violence. Let me make it absolutely clear: from whatever source, whether republican or loyalist, violence in Northern Ireland was never justified and never will be. But if we rewrite history by effectively whitewashing what happened and providing an amnesty, we are in danger of sending out a signal to the future that violence is an acceptable way forward. That is a very dangerous pathway and not one that any of us would intend to go down, but I think we are inadvertently going down it.
For all those reasons, this is an opportunity to think again and pause for thought. I therefore welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment. I believe it is a productive and balanced way forward, and I therefore urge the House to support it.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the amendment and for what, if I may say so, was an incredibly powerful speech today. We have heard so many powerful speeches today from all sides of the House. I noted here that we have had speeches from Northern Ireland and not Northern Ireland. We have had the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Hain—a former Northern Ireland Secretary—and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who made an incredibly powerful speech. Then there were the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Alton, who also made speeches that made a very powerful case. We even heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, making a slightly different case but supporting, none the less, the aims of the amendment before us this afternoon.
As I said at Second Reading, the strength of opposition risks undermining the Bill’s stated intentions of dealing with the past and promoting reconciliation—“reconciliation” is in the very title of the Bill. But the Bill is not promoting reconciliation and is opposed by so many who have spoken today. It is for this reason that on these Benches we support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. A Bill of such sensitivity and consequence cannot and should not proceed without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who I thought also made a very powerful speech this afternoon, we need to listen to the victims and pause this Bill before Third Reading.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, it is rare that I speak in this House and say how disappointed I am to be here. But I think there was some optimism that, when we had the Second Reading, the Government would go away and, in thinking again, perhaps have that pause for discussions that we had hoped. I pay tribute to the Minister, because he did. This has taken longer to come back to us; the Bill has had quite a long gestation period to get to this point. But it is worth noting that the reason the noble Baroness has brought her amendment before us today is that, for all the engagement the Minister has undertaken and all the discussions that have been had, there has been no movement in the opposition to this Bill. It is not a lack of engagement that is causing the problem. It is not a lack of talking to people. It is perhaps a lack of listening and changing.
The noble Baroness’s amendment before us today is a very unusual one, so I hope the noble Lord recognises that it indicates the strength of feeling across this House and outside in Northern Ireland. I think it is a rare and dubious honour to have united every Northern Ireland voice in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, have tried to deal with some of these issues themselves in the past, and no one is pretending that it is easy or that there is an easy solution. But what is essential is that victims, survivors and indeed veterans and others—anyone who has been associated with this time—have confidence in the process. This is what we are lacking today. I suppose the point—it is not necessarily a disagreement —is that we all know the views of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running and debated this tomorrow, it would not make any difference. It would still oppose the Bill, such is the strength of feeling. I was there for just a few days, the week before last, and in every single meeting we had with every single political party, and at every meeting afterwards, this was raised as an issue and there was no support.
It is appropriate that in Committee we should be clear about our approach to the Bill. The Minister has been generous with his time and we have had numerous discussions, but our position remains the same: we do not support the Bill. Indeed, at Third Reading in the other place we voted against it. That remains our position. The leader of our party has said he will repeal the Bill, such is his opposition to it. He does not say that to wipe the issue to one side; he says it in order  to find a better and different way of trying to deal with some of these issues, recognising that most people want to find a process that works and that this difficult, complex and painful for so many.
We also recognise, as does the noble Baroness in her amendment, that we are a revising and scrutinising Chamber. We have an obligation to look at amendments, reflect on the issues and have those discussions.
I want to put on record our thanks and appreciation to the numerous individuals and organisations who have engaged across your Lordships’ House with briefings and information, shared their views and experiences with us and suggested amendments that might improve the Bill. I have to say that, in same way that the Minister has said he has been challenged by this, those who have engaged with us have also said how challenged they are. More than once it has been said to us that, even by suggesting amendments or improvements to the Bill, they feel that they are compromised in trying to seek amendments to legislation that they consider fundamentally flawed. I think that is a difficulty for everybody.
So we share the desire that there should be a process and that we should move forward and deal with the issues, but I have to say, as I have said numerous times, that we do not believe that the Bill is the right way forward, and it is disappointing. The Minister has brought forward some amendments, which we will debate over the course of Committee. I do not particularly object to them as they are, but they do not deal with the fundamental problems or go far enough.
Among the discussions we have had was on the question, “What would you do, then?” To be honest, I do not know. I have grappled with this issue, as did my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who was the first Victims and Survivors Minister in Northern Ireland; I succeeded him in that role. You do not get to the endgame early on in the process. It is a difficult and complex issue, and it is only by continuing having difficult discussions that you can find a way forward. It is not just the political parties; it is the victims’ groups and individual victims and survivors who need to have their voices heard.
I think we need to proceed with the Bill. I would like to see us looking at amendments and sending them to the other place, but I have to say that there is a universal lack of confidence in the Bill. I do not criticise the Government for trying to find a way forward but, as the Minister has heard from around the House, there is little confidence that this is a way that will be helpful. There may be aspects of it that people can sign up to, but it needs much more discussion. As we move forward in Committee, we need far more thought. The Minister has always been willing to engage. Before the Bill even proceeds to Report, there should be engagement that leads to significant change, not just something that ticks a box. That is not what I am accusing him of, but it is how it is perceived by many.
So I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the opportunity for this debate. There is always a tendency to feel that we might rehearse Second Reading arguments, but it is important that we restate at the  beginning of the Bill how very sad we are that we are debating the Bill at this stage today. It needs more work and there is a willingness across the House to engage to find something better, and I hope that, as we proceed with the Bill, the Minister will understand that. If there are not significant amendments, there will be disappointment, and the issue will continue to be a difficulty that, until there is not necessarily a resolution but some way forward that commands confidence across Northern Ireland, will not work.

Lord Caine: Well, my Lords, I said at Second Reading that I was well aware that this legislation had been met with far from universal acclamation, and, if I may say so, the last hour and seven minutes has reminded me of that in spades.
A number of noble Lords were kind enough to reference my role in this legislation. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack and a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I think one suggested that had it been my Bill it might have been slightly different. That may or may not be the case, but I tried to assure the House at Second Reading that I was committed to working with noble Lords on all sides and to continue engaging with groups outside Northern Ireland to see what could be done to improve the legislation in line with the proper constitutional functions of your Lordships’ House that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reminded us of. That is what I have sought to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in moving her amendment—I hope it was inadvertent—cast some doubt on the level of engagement, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to it. I can only say that, since the end of July, I have done over 30 meetings—frankly, I have lost count—on legacy with political parties in Northern Ireland, Members of your Lordships’ House, victims’ groups and others. Those meetings have always been frank and candid, and I have sought to listen and take on board as many points as I can. I will continue that engagement and, indeed, I will be doing more such meetings in Northern Ireland next week. That has been a genuine attempt to fulfil the promises I made at Second Reading. Again in response to the noble and right reverend Lord, whom I hold in the highest regard—he is a man of great principle and has made a huge contribution in Northern Ireland over many decades—I say that I believe that the amendments I have brought forward are a reflection of the promises I gave at Second Reading. I am very happy to sit down, at any time, with the noble and right reverend Lord to go through those amendments, but we will be debating them anyway, I hope, at a later stage.
I understand the motive behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. I have long had sympathy with the notion that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have greater involvement in these matters. It was always the position, for many years, that addressing the legacy of the past should be owned and tackled primarily by Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. Some of us remember—it was not that long ago—10 years ago, when the Northern Ireland Executive invited Richard Haass, along with Meghan O’Sullivan, in the aftermath of the flags  protest and difficulties over disputed parades, to address the issue of flags, parading and the past. That initiative was driven by the Northern Ireland Executive, supported by the parties in the Assembly. Unfortunately, as with other attempts to deal with these very difficult issues, that process did not find a consensus, and 12 months later, we found ourselves at Stormont House trying to deal with the same issues.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady O’Loan, referred to the Stormont House agreement. At the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I was in the room, as it were, for all but a few hours—time off for good behaviour—for about 11 weeks of that entire process. The level of consensus reached there has always been exaggerated. I can well remember the spokesman for the noble Baroness’s former party, the SDLP, opposing just about every line on legacy—she is smiling because she knows to whom I refer—in that agreement as “a dilution” of Haass-O’Sullivan, which was itself a dilution of Eames-Bradley. So the SDLP was not exactly oversold on it. I do not see my noble friend, Lord Empey, in his place, but my noble friend, Lord Rogan, is there, and he will attest to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party did not support the provisions in the Stormont House agreement. So, that is two out of five that opposed it, pretty well right from the outset. Over the years, the level of consensus fell away even further.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: I point out to the Minister that, from my very deep recollection, the SDLP supported the Stormont House agreement.

Lord Caine: As one who was in the room on 23 December 2014 when the final document was handed out, I think the approach of the former Member for Belfast South, Alasdair McDonnell, who was the leader of the party at the time—he might want to correct me if my recollection is faulty—was to say that they would look at it and give it a fair wind, but he made no commitments beyond that. As I say, the party’s spokesman was in a rather different position, but that might not be the first or last time that has been the case.
I also recall vividly that, after the Stormont House agreement was reached in late 2014, in early 2015 the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive came to the then Secretary of State and asked her whether the UK Government would take the legislation through this Parliament in Westminster to implement it, citing the enormous difficulties that would be encountered by trying to get it through the Assembly. That in part is why we are here; it went from something that it was envisaged would be dealt with in the Assembly to something that it was then requested we do here. It has, if I can put it like this, been a Westminster responsibility ever since. That is in part why the Government are bringing the Bill forward and why I stand here today.
Given that context, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others reminded us, we have been grappling with this—it was never dealt with in the 1998 agreement because it was too difficult then. Successive Governments have sought to deal with it; they have failed to achieve consensus and resolution has proved elusive, frankly, to Governments of both parties. But we are, in a sense,  running out of time in that people are getting older—some are passing away—and the chance of getting information to victims and survivors becomes more difficult the longer time passes.
Perhaps I may briefly try to pick up one or two further comments from the debate. My noble friend Lord Hailsham referred to a statute of limitations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. This provides me with an opportunity to remind the House that the Bill has changed considerably from the original Command Paper proposals. People have referred to the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2021—I think the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme raised it—but that was on the proposals in the Command Paper rather than the Bill that we are dealing with. It has changed, and I am on record in this House as opposing a statute of limitations on this issue. My noble friend and I have discussed it before; he and I have different views, as I am opposed to it. If there were a statute of limitations in the Bill, I would not be here doing it. The Bill has changed so that the immunity provisions within it are conditional and must at least be earned. Where there is no co-operation with the new commission, the prosecution route remains open.
My friend, as I think I can call him, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to veterans being opposed. The exchange that he had with the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, probably drew out one of the points that I was going to make: that veterans are not a homogeneous group. I met the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement last week and it is very supportive of the Bill. Where I definitely agree with the noble Viscount and the noble Lord is that we should be proud of the record and service of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces. As I have said in this House on many occasions, my view is that without their contribution, sacrifice and service there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude and we should never forget that.
One or two noble Lords referred to the timetable of the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, rightly, that I have not exactly rushed this. I introduced the Bill in your Lordships’ House in July last year; it then took until to November for Second Reading. I have taken it slowly into Committee, and of course I hope—although it is slightly above my pay grade, looking at my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip next to me—that we will not necessarily rush headlong into Report. As I said at Second Reading, I have never anticipated that the amendments that I bring forward for this amending stage of the Bill would necessarily be the end of the story.
To respond to comments from my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I am looking at what more can be done at a later stage of the Bill’s passage that will explicitly meet more of the concerns of victims and survivors. Again, I am very happy to sit down with noble Lords at the appropriate time to discuss those proposals before we reach Report.
For the reasons I hope I have set out—and, again, I am grateful for the words of the noble Baroness—the Government cannot support the amendment to the  Motion. I will make one final point. I said at Second Reading that I found this challenging; I make no attempt to conceal that, and neither will other people. But if, as some people are proposing, we simply withdraw, delay or start again, which I think is the position of the party opposite, we really risk spending at least another five years on the issue.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Forgive me, my Lords, but I wanted to clarify that our position has always been that this Bill should never have been brought forward in this form until it had commanded some support. That has not changed, so it is not a pause or delay if nothing has changed. If there is a fundamental problem with the Bill, we would rather it be pulled back. My noble friend Lord Murphy and I met the Secretary of State and the Minister himself to say, “Don’t proceed with this Bill; we will work with you to find a better way.”

Lord Caine: I appreciate the noble Baroness’s tone and comments. The only point I was trying to make is that pausing or stopping the Bill, as some have suggested—or if it gets to the statute book and it were to be repealed by a Government of a different colour in 18 months’ time or so; although I do not predict that for one second—we risk, in those circumstances, prolonging this for at least another five years while there is consultation, attempts to reach consensus, which will probably never happen, and the need to draw up legislation, et cetera. During that period, as I have referenced before, more people will have passed away and more people’s memories will be defective, so the chances of getting information to people will be even more remote and the chances of prosecutions more so.

Lord Hain: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I actually agree with the last point he made. I think that we would all like to take this opportunity to resolve the issue, but it cannot be resolved in a way which antagonises everybody—that is the problem. I urge him again, as I have done in private, to look again at the Operation Kenova amendments; they provide a working model to deliver the Bill and they have universal support. I am open to technical tweaks and any discussions with the Minister to make those amendments more acceptable technically, but the substance is there to get a consensus on this for the first time in generations, if not ever.

Lord Caine: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Without prolonging this, I hope that we might get to those amendments this evening and have a proper discussion and debate on them. But I am grateful for the spirit of what he said.
In conclusion, the Government clearly cannot support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I understand completely the motivations behind it, but, in the Government’s view, the Bill provides an opportunity to give more information to victims and survivors in a timely manner, and it is the Government’s view that it should proceed.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I express my deep gratitude to everyone who spoke on the Bill today: noble Lords spoke with such eloquence and  gravitas on these most sensitive issues. I thank the Minister for his response, and I hope he will understand that, despite all the nice things he said, I cannot accept much of what he said, particularly his comments on the Stormont House agreement. Things have moved on in the eight years since then, and we are now in a different place. All of us who were in Northern Ireland at the time of the Good Friday agreement had grave difficulty with things such as the release of prisoners. It was a difficult time, and people are trying to find ways that will enable everyone to engage in one process for dealing with the past.
The Government’s actions in bringing the Bill and continuing to push it are doing very serious damage to our reputation as a country. They are also doing huge damage and causing a lot of pain, grief and loss of trust in the United Kingdom Government among the people affected by the Bill. That is profoundly important, as noble Lords said.
I will say a word of reassurance on veterans to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. As I have said previously in this House, members of my family served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, so I know exactly that I do not intend, and that it is not the intention of any of us, to cause grief to veterans. Those who served honourably really have nothing to fear, and the statistics show that, but I will not delay your Lordships on that.
Finally, the people of Northern Ireland are united against the Bill. Your Lordships will have seen the extent of unity among those of us from Northern Ireland about the Bill. I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division today, but I ask the Government again to pause and even to dispense with the Bill and start again. There is no necessity or urgency to deal with this situation; there is a need to get it right. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

  
Clause 1: Meaning of “the Troubles” and other key expressions

Amendment 1

Baroness Suttie: Moved by Baroness Suttie
1: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 30 to 38Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to probe whether the definition of “serious physical or mental harm” in the Bill is sufficiently broad to ensure all those who wish to avail themselves of the ICRIR’s services are able to.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. For the record, I too thank the Minister for his willingness to engage in this process. I echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that he has been an exemplary Minister. I congratulate and thank him very much, and I appreciate that he gave up a large chunk of his summer holiday last year to engage in this process.

Lord Caine: That was in response to you.

Baroness Suttie: Indeed, it was in response to my request. So I think we in this Chamber all recognise that the Minister not only has engaged very actively but has a tremendous amount of personal experience on this. Because of this, he has a tremendous amount of doubt about some of the elements currently in the Bill.
It is very welcome that the Minister has made a commitment to use Committee to continue to listen and engage on these concerns, and to listen to the very strongly held views of the House, which reflect the wider concerns in Northern Ireland and beyond. It is in that spirit that I hope that he will listen to the debate today.
Amendment 1 seeks to probe whether the definition in the list of eight narrowly defined characteristics on page 2 of the Bill is sufficiently broad to ensure that all those who wish to use the ICRIR are in a position to be able to do so. The trouble always with producing such lists is that they often accidentally result in some people being excluded and could therefore risk seeing some victims being denied justice. While acknowledging that the list is actually broader than was contained in the Stormont House agreement, it should be noted that the Stormont House agreement allowed for alternative legal routes, such as civil cases and inquests. It is worth exploring in Committee whether a longer list, or a more flexible approach to a list, could be adopted. We would be very happy to discuss the possible wording with the Minister between now and Report.
The Minister will know that the Commission for Victims and Survivors has expressed particular concern about the need to demonstrate severe psychiatric damage. At the time when many of the atrocities took place, people did not always have access to mental health medical services, so the link between the incident and mental health may not be clear.
The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also expressed concern about the current list of eight characteristics producing arbitrary outcomes. As paragraph 73 of its report on the Bill states:
“For example, consider that there are two similar cases concerning torture but resulting in differing harms. The first case results in severe brain injury—this type of harm falls under the definition of a ‘serious offence’. Where immunity is not granted, the case may be prosecuted. The second case of torture results in severe damage to one or more organs—this type of harm does not fall under the definition of a ‘serious’ offence—there is, therefore, no possibility of a prosecution. It is not clear why these cases ought to be treated differently.”
To give another specific example, I would query the use of the terms under subsection (6)(e) and (f), which list the characteristics of “total blindness” or “total deafness”. Surely, partial blindness or partial deafness would still have a potentially very traumatic impact on a person’s life. I urge the Minister to examine this section of the Bill again to see whether it could be redrafted in a more flexible manner so that people are not accidentally excluded from access to the ICRIR. I am sure—or at least I hope—that this was not the original intention behind the drafting of this clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, as a signatory of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I am happy to support that amendment. In various discussions with the victims commissioner in Northern Ireland, he has raised this issue on behalf of victims and survivors. We have already referred to the fact that there is cross-party support, as well as support in the victims’ organisations and in the churches for the Bill to go back to the drawing board of the Stormont House agreement. The role of the House of Lords is clearly to review, scrutinise and try to improve legislation before returning it to the Commons. However, challenges remain, because this legislation is, I feel, irremediable, as it centres on immunity from prosecution and ending all judicial processes for victims, thus making the amendments to the Bill—from the Government—a tinkering process.
Amendment 1 is probing. It seeks to broaden the quite narrow definition within the Bill in relation to medical conditions. In fact, a more expansive approach would enable more people to avail of the ICRIR’s services, whereas a restrictive approach will limit the efficacy of the legislation. Within Stormont House, other legal routes—civil cases, inquests and criminal prosecutions—would have been retained. This amendment was favoured and promoted by the victims commission, particularly on its visit to both Houses last week.
Other amendments would require greater levels of transparency and accountability from those required to give information. In particular, I refer to Amendment 147 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, which is really about Operation Denton, which he will deal with in quite a detailed way. The amendment refers to the fact that Operation Denton, which is dealing with the Glenanne murders, is so well progressed, and has developed such strong levels of trust and confidence from the families, that it will cause undue stress for those families and unnecessary delays to the findings being released for this inquiry to be passed to the ICRIR. It is therefore important that Operation Denton be allowed to complete its work. Will the Minister go back and explore further the need to keep Operation Denton? Its work will conclude in 2024 and it has already done vital work in the whole area of review by Jon Boutcher, supported by all of those families and victims who are involved in it—I am aware of that from having talked to some of them.

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, first, I have a quick comment on the previous debate. Many noble Lords—in fact, nearly all—talked about the consensus in Northern Ireland opposing this legacy Bill. I just remind them that there may be consensus, but it is from very different points of view.
My Amendment 63, which is also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Bew, Lord Godson and Lord Empey, is designed to narrow the criteria for a reinvestigation being started by the ICRIR. If the previous investigations listed in my amendment, such as by the HET or the PSNI’s Legacy Investigation Branch, and the stated need for the provision of “compelling new evidence”—a phrase that I remind noble Lords was thought necessary and appropriate  for the overseas operation Act—are not added to the Bill, I have a very depressing prediction to make to your Lordships’ House. I think the ICRIR will end up reinvestigating many—indeed, every one—of the nearly 4,000 deaths. The cost will be billions of pounds, not the budgeted £250 million, and the process will last not for five years but for a decade or more, because this is where judicially led enquiries go, especially when internationalised. If the ICRIR, as suggested in the Minister’s letter to noble Lords on 17 January, is obliged to act simply on allegations, that can be the only consequence.
Legacy practitioners—which is the new force in Northern Ireland, not the victims’ relatives as the Bill believes, I believe, naively—using the concept of collusion, or “collusive behaviours”, the version relied on now by the Police Ombudsman, can design a case to investigate every death. Collusion can be alleged in relation to all loyalist killings and, indeed, all republican ones, by virtue of the use of security force agents in both paramilitary groups, let alone alleged investigatory failings that Strasbourg complains of.
When I spoke at Second Reading of the overseas operations Bill, almost exactly two years ago on 20 January 2021, I said:
“Let us not forget that the only cases now involving veterans are ones pending in Northern Ireland, which concern events of 50 years ago or more. For that reason, we need to get on with a Northern Ireland equivalent law”.—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1236.]
Of course, extending that Act to cover Operation Banner, as I suggested then, and others, would have dealt with the issue in hand, rather than this increasingly complex confection of ICRIR.
No murder case in England would ever see this level of reinvestigation, and certainly not of funding. Have we learned no lessons from the Iraq historical allegations, and solicitor Phil Shiner? Let us remember, as was mentioned earlier, that it is good to remind people of who actually died in the three decades of the Northern Ireland terrorist campaign. Nearly 4,000 persons died violently; 60% of the deaths were caused by republicans and 30% by loyalists. The state—police officers and soldiers—was responsible for approximately 10% of the killings. Very few of those state killings were unlawful, as the force used was not unreasonable, but all the republican and loyalist murders were most certainly unlawful.
The rewriting of history is about the complexity of the Troubles being distorted into a single concern with state killings, which of course republicans and their allies then use, slowly, case by case, to construct the narrative of the IRA being somehow a popular resistance force that had no alternative to killing. The Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe, when enforcing the ECHR judgments on the so-called McKerr line of cases, refers only to killings
“either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel.”
So Strasbourg has effectively accepted a nationalist perspective on the matter for the past 20 years, and there has been no public challenge by our Government. Some 90% of victims’ families are thus being told by  the human rights court that they do not really matter. They are not wanted in the world of lawfare; they are an embarrassment.
When ICRIR opens for business, I believe the following will happen: there will be a smattering of requests for reviews from very distressed relatives; the IRA Army Council will almost certainly not be tempted by the immunity opportunity; and loyalists may not know how to respond. The vast majority of requests will be from legacy practitioners, once again, who will demand rigorous reviews—in fact, new criminal investigations—of hundreds of cases on the flimsiest of allegations, unless curbed by our amendment. The Northern Ireland Office has to brace itself for the judicial reviews and civil suits that will keep on coming.
Legacy has been a poisoned chalice since the Belfast agreement, and it is worth remembering that the 1998 document never envisaged what has since happened. About victims it said simply:
“The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence.”
The United Kingdom failed to deal with legacy, although we now have something close to peace. There has been no substitution; nobody has brought forward a real legacy plan since the Eames-Bradley report of 2009, which did have some elements of legacy. The only credible initiative was from former Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde’s Historical Enquiries Team within the PSNI. But that was closed down because a radical academic, given access, misconstrued what was happening, and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary joined in the unwarranted criticism of the PSNI and HET—I believe to the anger of Sir Hugh.
This amendment is designed to stop mission creep by the ICRIR. It needs to be accepted because, without a statutory mention that narrows access and prohibits repeat applications, the commission’s remit will grow, just as the police ombudsman’s did. We need finality and I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to my speech and those of other noble Lords on this very important issue.

Lord Eames: My Lords, in his response to the previous debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I fear that the Minister may have misunderstood some of the phrases I used in my own remarks. I do not in the slightest attach any personal criticism to him for the failure of the amendments we asked for from the Government on a previous occasion. I hold him in the highest possible regard personally for all he has done for Northern Ireland, and I hope that that respect is, despite the remarks, mutual.

Lord Caine: My Lords, I would not normally intervene, but I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his very kind words. If I did misunderstand him, that is my failing. I assure him that the admiration is indeed very mutual.

Lord Eames: My Lords, turning to the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has brought to the attention of the House, may I refer to just one aspect of what I believe is the almost impossible task that the commission will face? It is the question of  contact, discussion and analysis of those who are involved in cases brought before it. It is not just a question of medical phraseology and limiting the field in which people could claim to have consequential difficulties because of the Troubles. From my experience over the years, I have seen that it is almost impossible to define and limit the consequences of the experience of people—families, relatives and neighbours—because mental scars are very hard to define, but they are vivid in their consequences for people’s lives.
Secondly, I support what the noble Baroness said in moving her amendment in terms of the difficulty of the construction we will eventually give to this commission. I know from experience—as do many Members of your Lordships’ House—how difficult it is when distinct definitions are not spelled out and people have their own approach to what they think was defined or underlined. If this part of the Bill is to proceed, I suggest to the Minister that a closer examination is needed of the definition of the commission’s role—how it is to be described, how it will relate to jurisprudence and how it will relate to the way in which individual cases are presented. There is, I believe, real opportunity for this concept of the new commission to proceed, and proceed in a positive way, but I still think that a great deal of preliminary thought is necessary at this stage.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I will speak briefly first to Amendment 63, which seems to be based on the premise that if any investigation was carried out or any report written on a Troubles-related incident, that would be enough to take it off the desk of the commissioner for investigations, and that any request for an investigation must be rejected unless the family requesting it “has compelling new evidence”. However, we know that one of the genuine concerns of many victims and survivors is that the case of their loved one was never properly investigated in the first place. In many cases at the height of the Troubles, there were understandable security reasons why proper investigations by the then RUC simply were not possible. We also know that information was very often withheld from investigating teams.
Another source of huge frustration for families living with these painful cases is that they had, and still have, little or no contact with the investigators. They have no idea whether the investigations are active or have been shelved, and have had no updates or reports. The experience of Margaret was, I am afraid, not untypical. Her husband was abducted and held for three days by the Provisional IRA before he was shot and his body dumped on the street. She was visited by a young police officer and then heard nothing thereafter. Ten years later, her son-in-law was murdered by a loyalist gang. She was visited by the same officer, who was by then a detective. She heard nothing further about that case either. Your Lordships will also know that in the early 1970s, cases involving military personnel were not investigated by the police at all but were handled in-house by the Royal Military Police.
We cannot say that on the one hand that we want to ease the pain of victims of horrific crimes through an effective information recovery process and then, on  the other, tell them that unless they uncover evidence that the state has failed so far to find, they must be satisfied with what they have.
There is a process that is working for families and is a model for how to deal with the legacy issue, and that is Operation Kenova. I and other noble Lords will be speaking at greater length on Kenova when further amendments are debated, notably in the next group. Many victims and survivors will be very suspicious of a process that seems have as its starting point mechanisms to shut down evidence finding and information gathering, and I am afraid that this Amendment 63 is badly flawed for that reason.

Baroness Hoey: I accept part of what the noble Lord is saying about how the victims feel about what has happened in the past and the need to understand more. However, does he not agree that the reality is that for the people from the terrorist organisations who perpetrated these acts, there are no records, as was said earlier, and there is nothing that at this stage will ever lead to anyone ending up in court and being found guilty? Indeed, many of those people who were involved with some of these killings have in fact been given letters of freedom and have been given immunity.

Lord Hain: The point I am making is that there were files, and Operation Kenova has had access to those files. They are held principally by the security services but, under very strict conditions and with trust, the investigation has been able to retrieve information on a sensible basis without compromising the work of the security services, and that has been of great comfort for victims. That is my point and my concern about the noble Baroness’s amendment.
I turn to my Amendment 147. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, both distinguished former Metropolitan Police Commissioners, together with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, a distinguished former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, for adding their names. The amendment is designed to ensure, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie has already argued, that the Bill does not prevent the continuation of the review into the Glenanne gang series, known as Operation Denton, which is expected to conclude and report in spring 2024—that is, after the Bill could have received Royal Assent.
What is known as the Glenanne gang series includes a significant number of murders and other terrorist offences committed in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles between around 1972 and 1978. The cases within the Glenanne gang series are connected by common features, such as individuals, weapons, areas or targets involved. In some of these cases, direct evidence has already demonstrated the collusion of police or security force personnel.
Various parties, including families, have significant concerns about the rigour and professionalism of previous investigations into these cases and have for many years sought a comprehensive, overarching, thematic analysis of the Glenanne series and the extent of any state collusion. On 5 July 2019, the Barnard judgment set out the requirement for an independent review of the activities of the Glenanne gang, a statutory requirement  in accordance with Section 35(5) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chief constable of the PSNI requested that the former chief constable of Bedfordshire Police, Jon Boutcher, carry out this review. It was named Operation Denton, commenced in February 2020 and is part of the cases being conducted under the umbrella of Operation Kenova.
To date, Operation Denton has identified 127 murders resulting from 93 separate incidents connected to this series. It has met and is supporting families of the victims. It has had success in securing the release of material from the Republic of Ireland through lobbying for and securing the introduction of secondary legislation by the Irish Government to ensure access to records held by the Garda to assist the review. It is anticipated that Operation Denton will conclude and report publicly and to families no later than spring 2024.
Operation Denton is so well progressed and has developed such strong levels of trust and confidence with the families that it would cause unnecessary delay to the review—and, crucially, undue stress to families, who have suffered grievously already—for this inquiry to be passed to the ICRIR. It is important therefore that Operation Denton be allowed to complete its work. I hope that the Minister, who I see is nodding, will confirm that in his reply to this group of amendments. The lawyers and NGOs supporting the Glenanne series’ victims and families have indicated that they will legally challenge any decision to stop Operation Denton and will not co-operate with the ICRIR, such is their confidence in the work currently being done.
In conclusion, it is almost certain that Operation Denton’s work will be completed and families informed of its findings before the ICRIR is open for referrals. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will give the Committee the assurance that I seek and the absolute assurance that the victims desire.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 1. I support this probing amendment. That is not necessarily to make a judgment that what is in place at present is insufficient, but it is probing to establish whether what is placed in the legislation is comprehensive enough and whether it covers all the situations. There can be nothing worse than finding that there are inadvertent consequences and that, through a degree of misunderstanding or because we have not been exacting enough, some people are excluded wrongly, or perhaps even that the net is drawn too widely on other occasions. As I said, I draw no conclusions as to whether that is the case at present but I will listen with care to the answers given by the Minister on that.
To take the last point on Amendment 147, I have some sympathy for the case that the noble Lord put forward. However, I have some level of reservation. It is undoubtedly an investigation into one of the most horrendous series of murders that have taken place; they were horrific, and it is correct that they should be condemned. Where I have a little reservation in perhaps suggesting that the whole Bill is flawed is that if we start looking at individual operations, however well advanced, and singling them out for some level of exemption, that can create a concern that other areas  of investigation into horrendous murders which are needed are not also covered. That is my concern about Amendment 147.
On Amendment 52, again, I look forward to what the Minister will say on that. I have some reservations about it. At the moment, there is a five-year period in which there is an opportunity for a request to be made. It is hard to see in genuine cases why a family would not make that within the five-year period, so I am not clear why this is necessary. Indeed, are we shifting the goalposts by making this entirely open-ended in terms of making the request? Therefore, at this stage I am certainly sceptical about that but I look forward to what will be said in connection with it.
I support the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in Amendment 63. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the point that there is a concern about the inadequacy of some investigations. I take that very much on board. However, what the noble Baroness says is proportionate, fair and practical. I say that because Amendment 63 would take into account what previous investigations had taken place. Surely the aim of the investigations in review is to bring everything up to the same level. If work has already been done, that should be built on where necessary. We should not look to duplicate work; that is from a practical point of view because there is a danger of the level of funding becoming open-ended to the extent that it is simply unaffordable.
We also need equality of treatment. There would be a concern that if we simply disregarded an investigation —indeed, if we have investigation after investigation in some cases—then some high-profile cases in which people are able to shout the loudest may go to the front of the queue and get an additional level of investigation, rather than there being equality of treatment for victims.
Amendment 63 has been carefully worded. It does not say that a previous investigation would preclude a review or an investigation. It would place the onus on the Chief Commissioner to take account of what has happened before. In many cases, particularly in the early days of the Troubles, that investigation might well have been inadequate. What information is available should be a key factor in determining the level of work that must go into an individual case. What is there is balanced.
The proposed opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill is also in this group. I again have considerable sympathy for what has been put forward. Undoubtedly, we must ensure that the net for what evidence is inadmissible to the courts is not thrown too wide. There is a concern that what is presently within Clause 7 is not fit for purpose and, at the very least, creates elements where clarity is needed. For example, it is not clear in what circumstances an applicant for immunity would provide information that is not connected with the application process. Perhaps the Minister can expand on this. Separately, Clause 7(3)(b) has the effect of making material that is later obtained “as a result” of material provided by the applicant inadmissible. That seems quite tenuous. We must ensure that the inadmissibility net is not any wider than it needs to be.
There are considerable concerns over Clause 7. I know that the Government are proposing some changes to it but again, there is a lack of clarity. For example,  there is an interaction between admissibility of material, as mentioned in Clause 7, and Clause 23, on the provision of information to prosecutors. That needs to be clarified. If Clause 7 was to remain within the legislation, the Minister must clarify what impact Clause 23 has on Clause 7. Without such clarification, there would be a strong case at least for re-examination of what is in Clause 7, and perhaps for exclusion altogether.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71 and 83, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Amendment 83 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am grateful to them for their support. I too have benefited from engagement on my amendments with not only the Minister but the Bill team and his private office, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation.
Amendment 71 requires that, as far as possible, ICRIR reviews be conducted in public, providing for transparency in the conduct of reviews by that body. Transparency is not only desirable in reconciliation but a necessary precondition for it to occur. Many of the reviews that the ICRIR will be charged with conducting will have decades of mutual suspicion to contend with. My amendment to Clause 13 attempts to bring greater transparency to those reviews where possible. It is not merely a question of procedural efficiency; it will make clear to those for whom we are seeking the truth that they can be as confident as possible that there is no thumb on the scales, that the review process can be trusted, and that those tasked with handling these hugely sensitive investigations are doing so without the pressure to conform to some predetermined narrative.
Clause 13(1) provides that:
“The Commissioner for Investigations has operational control over the conduct of reviews by the ICRIR, whether they have been … requested under section 9 or 10, or … decided on by the ICRIR under section 12.”
The amendment reflects what I have perceived to be a strongly held view that the reviews conducted by the commissioner should be transparent. Accordingly, the amendment is necessary. As I have had the benefit of engaging with the Minister and his office, I anticipate that in his response the Minster will explain that the commissioner already has this power to conduct reviews—or at least parts of them—in public where appropriate. I am afraid that this view is not universally held by experts in statutory interpretation with whom I have discussed the amendment.
In part, this interpretation is reinforced by the fact that there is a presumption in Section 18 of the Inquiries Act 2005, which is the basis of all statutory inquiries in this country, that members of the public can watch the inquiry, either in person or via broadcast. This section imposes duties on an inquiry as to the disclosure of documents and evidence to members of the public. The chair must take reasonable steps to secure that members of the public can view documents and records of evidence given to the inquiry.
The 2005 Act provides that the proceedings of an inquiry must be made public unless one of several circumstances apply. It sets out a substantial list of issues that must be considered. They are
“the extent to which any restriction on attendance, disclosure or publication might inhibit the allaying of public concern … any risk of harm or damage that could be avoided or reduced by any such restriction … any conditions as to confidentiality subject to which a person acquired information that he is to give, or has given, to the inquiry … the extent to which not imposing any … restriction would be likely … to cause delay or to impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the inquiry or … otherwise to result in additional cost”.
Amendment 83 would impose a duty to respond to questions posed by the commissioner for investigations on a person who, in the course of conducting a review, had been required to submit information under Clause 14. Clause 14 sets out various requirements for the supply of information which can be set by the commissioner for investigations. For example, subsection (2) provides that:
“The Commissioner for Investigations may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice … to provide information.”
However, there is no power to require such a person to respond to questions asked about the information provided. This is a gap in the powers of the commissioner that needs to be filled. Again, there is statutory provision in another important piece of legislation that does just that.
This amendment achieves the objective of making questions be asked. It is instructive to look at the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in this regard. Schedule 5 to the Act deals with the powers of coroners, which include the power to require evidence to be given or produced, stating:
“A senior coroner may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice and”--
importantly—
“to give evidence at an inquest.”
So why are these provisions necessary in other inquiry legislation but omitted from this Bill? What is the Minister’s explanation—and why, if he resists these amendments, does he think that the Bill will not need these powers?

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 147 from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. In passing, it might be worth mentioning that I am open-minded about whether this Bill should progress. I think that there are arguments both ways, and we have heard some powerful ones today, but it relies on the consent and support of those people most affected by it.
One thing that has struck me in the debate today is that certain groups of people have not been mentioned whom I am sure no one wanted to forget. It was not until the Minister responded that we talked about the RUC’s losses and about its involvement in some of these cases. As we consider the immunity that might be offered, I think that we all respect and support the military’s losses and involvement in these things. Of course, the RUC was directly involved, and its members did not return to barracks at the end of the day but went home to their children, their parents and many other people. I do not think that anybody is choosing to forget, but we ought to keep that in mind.
We also ought to keep in mind that, here in mainland UK, the people of Warrington, Manchester, Birmingham and London lost people. Their thoughts have to be borne in mind too. It is not a case of “This is predominantly a Northern Ireland Bill”. There are other people who must be considered too, and they have not been spoken of today.
I support Amendment 147 because I think that the progress made by Operation Kenova is very significant. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we should be concerned that this might extend to a whole new group of investigations that might be extended. But we should have the reassurance that the number of investigations is quite discrete. A significant number of these are already with the DPP in Northern Ireland. They have been for quite a while, and there is a question about whether there are sufficient resources there and the skills necessary to make these decisions—none of which are easy, as we all know, but at least we have got to the point of a case going to a prosecutor to consider a charge. That is a very significant number.
There is also the outstanding case of Operation Denton, which has been investigated for a significant amount of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has already suggested, it is thought that there will be cases going to the DPP by the beginning of next year. There is no certainty about this, but that is a professional judgment which I think is not unreasonable. The main thing to consider there is that, obviously, the families and all those interested in the outcome of those investigations now have a trust and expectation: a trust in the investigation team, which has been hard won and can easily be lost, and also a trust in the process.
Of course, it may be that the Government have to decide that they will end these investigations and fold them within this proposal. I think we all understand that that is a real dilemma. But, for the families involved, and given all the hard work that has gone into this, it would be a terrible shame. Some of the previous investigations have not had the support that we heard described by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and that, from my experience, has been garnered in this case. It would be a shame if that hard work and trust were lost on this occasion.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. She made the case with absolute clarity. No more needs to be said.
On Amendment 147, I reassert my declaration that I am a member of the international steering group advising on Operations Denton and Kenova. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, a very long-overdue review of cases involving the Glenanne gang, which is reported to have involved loyalists, including members of the security forces, who carried out shooting and bombing attacks against Catholics and Irish nationalists in the 1970s. We know that there are some 127 victims.
I will address the comments made repeatedly that terrorists do not keep records and that the police and Army do. Having investigated many of these cases of alleged collusion, I can tell noble Lords categorically that those involved in collusion do not keep records:  for example, of instructions to not investigate; to bring people in for questioning during an investigation, provide them with a cup of tea and some sandwiches, leave them in the room but not actually ask any questions, then release them, to protect them so that they have been investigated in the eyes of the general public; to perhaps lose evidence, which I have seen; or to contaminate physical evidence. None of this is recorded. That is why, where you can identify collusive activity of that kind, it is very usually impossible to bring a prosecution—and it is right that there should be no prosecution where there is no unbroken chain of evidence.
Denton has made very significant progress. It was reviewed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in January 2021, which explained that Denton differs from Kenova in that it is being conducted as a review and not a criminal investigation at this time. This makes the approach by the operational team fundamentally different from that of Kenova, which is an investigation, from an evidential perspective. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, Denton is due to be finished next year. Former Chief Constable Boutcher will then report.
Considerable resources have gone into this review. Were the Bill to be passed without an amendment of this kind, Denton would not be completed by Chief Constable Boutcher and his team and would fall for review by the ICRIR. Given the progress already made, to bring in a new team in would professionally require a review of what has been done before. I know we say that we do not reinvestigate, but, in professional terms, if you pick up a case that somebody has been managing, you must examine it to make sure you are satisfied that all investigative opportunities have been explored. That would result in a huge and unnecessary waste of resources, and it would be particularly damaging to victims and survivors, who would be required to revisit yet again what they suffered and have been suffering.
Such is the difference between investigations and reviews that An Garda Síochána, who have been very helpful to Denton and Kenova, was unable to provide sensitive material to Denton. That material could have been provided under international agreements for police co-operation, were Denton an investigation. But, because Denton is a review and not an investigation, it could not be provided under the European police co-operation agreements, et cetera.
At the request of the Operation Denton steering group and Chief Constable Boutcher, the Irish Government have passed a statutory instrument. The effect of that is to allow them to pass sensitive material, which they could not otherwise pass, to Operation Denton. When I was engaged in discussions about that matter with the Irish Government and Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, I was simultaneously considering this Bill. It was very odd to me that my Government in the United Kingdom were moving to close things down and the Irish Government were moving to open things up and be helpful.
So, given the complexity and extent of Operation Denton, I suggest to the Minister that it would clearly be in the public interest to permit Mr Boutcher and his team to complete the work in which they are engaged. I therefore support this amendment.
Amendment 52 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, would remove the five-year rule contained in the Bill, which effectively introduces a limitation on prosecution that is inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement and our international legal obligations.
This work of dealing with the past is incremental. It requires consideration of victims’ needs. A five-year limitation period for the seeking of investigations or reviews would place huge pressure on people who may be suffering the consequences—for some, very severe mental health problems—of the incident in question. I know that noble Lords will think that five years is a very long period, but I assure them that, in investigation terms and for people dealing with the mental health problems that have arisen as a consequence of the Northern Ireland Troubles, to add the additional pressure of knowing that you have to be there before five years are up is difficult.
Noble Lords will also understand, I think, that it will take some time to grow confidence in these new ICRIR processes. In light of the international condemnation of the Bill as it stands, questions might rightly be asked about whether victims, survivors and their families will use the new processes. That is another reason for us to think about the need to amend the Bill very significantly.
Does the period when the ICRIR becomes operational include or exclude the period of finding premises, setting up an office, agreeing a budget, getting staff, establishing processes, providing training, and the Secretary of State drafting all his guidance, et cetera? We do not have limitation periods for criminality in this country, for very good reasons. If a person was murdered before 10 April 1998, under this Bill they will have only five years to seek an investigation. If they were murdered four months later—in the Omagh bomb, for example, or in any of the other atrocities—that limitation would not apply. It is arbitrary. How do the Government justify the introduction of a limitation for a very small subset of the victims of crime in the United Kingdom?
Amendment 83 to Clause 14 deals with the situation in which the commissioner is seeking information. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has said, as drafted the Bill would simply permit the commissioner to seek information documents and so on. The amendment is very simple and would allow the commissioner to take the obvious next step: to review the information and then ask questions about the information that has been received. It is a logical investigative step; it is what everyone does.
The opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill is in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and will be dealt with shortly by one of those noble Lords. The clause would remove evidence from the courts. It is part of the wider set-up of an indemnity arrangement. It is not helpful and it is not consistent with the requirements of our international obligations.
I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I actually oppose her Amendment 63. Although it contains some very good observations, it  would limit—and is intended to limit—the situations in which a commissioner might or should initiate an investigation, particularly where a family have had a previous investigation and have no new compelling evidence. We have heard discussion about the ability of the police, in many circumstances, to investigate, and the fact that, in the early days, investigations were a completely different kettle of fish from what they became in later years during the Troubles. In most cases, because cases have not been prosecuted, the family will not even know what evidence there is. They do not have powers to gather evidence as the police do, and they are often very afraid of going out to look for evidence. I know incredibly brave people, such as the son of Sergeant Joseph Campbell, who was murdered in Cushendall. He met and talked to people, even while on his deathbed, who were suspected to be involved in the murder to try to find out what happened. There are many people who are very afraid.
Amendment 63 does not take into account the fact that, when one investigates some cases, one encounters evidence that is relevant to other cases. It would not be compliant with the law to prevent the ICRIR from investigating simply because the victim or their family have no compelling new evidence. We should not change the law to make the commission reject requests, as proposed by this amendment. I will conclude my remarks at this point.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: My Lords, I want to briefly comment on Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness raised, in relation to the five-year limit. When the Minister replies to this group of amendments, I hope he will respond to this point.
The Minister said in the previous debate that, if someone did not co-operate with an ICRIR investigation or review, a criminal route remains open—I think I am quoting him directly. But this amendment points to the fact that the Bill provides for a five-year limit: unless a case is brought to the commission within five years it cannot be brought, and the commission is the only body that can investigate Troubles-related crimes. Therefore, if somebody does not co-operate, after five years the body will continue to exist but it will not be able to take on or open any new investigations. How is it that a criminal route remains open, as there is no other body and the police will be prohibited from investigating? There is no other body that can do any investigations, so after five years, there is no criminal route open; it ends at that point. I would like an explanation as to what the Minister meant by his statement that a criminal route remains open if you do not co-operate. Under the Bill, after five years no further new investigations can be launched, nobody can make a complaint and there is nobody else who can do any investigations.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, this has been a deeply respectful debate. A number of issues have come to light, and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to them. Some of the issues are quite complex. I am grateful particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the experience that she brings to this.
I turn first to Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. This definition is something that the victims’ commissioner has raised with a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. The phrase “serious physical or mental harm” is really key here. Many of us have met victims who have suffered harm that is not always immediately evident. We have to look at this again, because there is no power for the definitions to be amended. Given the Government’s fondness for Sis—not that I am recommending this route—there possibly needs to be some discretion for the commission. We discussed this briefly with the Minister, and he is rightly wary of having a list, which can never be exhaustive, but this has to be revisited and looked at again. Some discretion might possibly be the way forward.
On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hain, I do not know whether the Minister is considering opening this up. Operation Denton is due to report in spring next year—I know that is an elastic term in government announcements. We will come to our amendment on this later in proceedings, but to have this investigation running for so long and for it then to be ended by the Bill would clearly be the wrong thing to do. It seems a sensible process, and one that started in 2020, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Hain is well made. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that so I can understand the timing.
There is no commencement time in this Bill. It would be helpful to know when, if the Bill were to conclude all its stages and become law, the Minister envisages that it would start. That is important in this context.
My noble friend Lord Browne talked about transparency. That is clear-cut: if we are to have confidence in a process, it needs to have transparency. I think it might be a mistake in the Government’s drafting that someone could be compelled to attend but not compelled to give evidence. That seems to be a bit of a loophole, and I hope that the Minister can come back with something positive on that. did
I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I can see the point that she is trying to address, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Weir—that in repeated inquiries it is the people who shout the loudest who have more access to the various mechanisms in place—but it seems to me to be a very absolute point. If compelling new evidence was brought forward, in any circumstances and by anybody, surely there should be the option for the commission to consider that compelling new evidence.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: I entirely agree with the point that the noble Baroness has made. However, to be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is that not why the amendment refers to “take into account”? That then would not preclude it being taken into account and a different approach being taken.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: It may be. I do not have the amendment in front of me—I will look at it again later—but there seemed to be an absoluteness. I understand the principle, but I want to make sure that the detail and specifics of the amendment do what they intend to and not cut off options for—

Baroness O'Loan: Proposed new subsection (5B) inserted by that amendment says that the commissioner
“must consider whether the close family member … has compelling new evidence, and if not, must reject that request.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: That is helpful; I am grateful. It is “the close family member” as well.
A number of issues arise from the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the question of Clause 7 standing part. Amendment 52 seeks to delete the five-year deadline from the start of the ICRIR’s operation—it is a nifty little acronym—for seeking reviews of Troubles-related deaths and offences. I can understand where the Government are coming from in saying that the process cannot be open-ended, but could the Minister say why they settled on five years? What consultation or views expressed led to five years? What assessment was made of the risk of people refusing to engage because they think that they can be timed out given the five-year cut-off? Did he receive any representations on that? Was it discussed? Was there a consultation, or was it plucked out of thin air? That is what I seek some clarity on.
I would be grateful for any guidance from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, but it seems to me that Clause 7 creates restrictions on the use of material against a person in criminal proceedings where that material is obtained by or provided to the ICRIR by that person, but it does not affect the use of material in proceedings brought against any other person. That seems to be a contradiction that needs to be addressed, and perhaps the Minister can clarify that. I have read the clause several times—that is why I was slightly delayed in getting up. It seems strange in the context of what the Government are trying to achieve.
The debate on this has again shown the respect that the Committee and this House have for victims, survivors and all those affected by the Bill. It also shows some of the tweaks and changes that will need to be made to address the particular concerns that have been raised today.

Lord Caine: I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments. I will start with Clause 7. As the Committee knows, the Government’s overriding objective is to put in place mechanisms that have the potential to deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles, particularly victims and survivors, while seeking to help society look forward. The Bill is designed to help achieve those objectives.
The primary focus of this legislation is effective information recovery. The commissioner will conduct investigations for the purposes of providing answers to those who seek them. Central to that is Clause 7, which creates restrictions on the use of material against a person in criminal proceedings where that material was obtained by or provided to the ICRIR—that acronym of which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, is so fond—by that person. This is very much in line with the approach for information recovery included in the Stormont House agreement in 2014 and is extremely important in avoiding the creation of a disincentive for people to come forward and provide information to the ICRIR. In the Stormont House  agreement there were similar provisions on evidence given to the ICIR, as was. It is very much in line with previous approaches to this issue.
The clause does not affect the use of material in proceedings brought against any other person, so it would be possible for a witness to provide information about an individual who was involved in a death or serious injury and for that information to be used in any subsequent prosecution against that individual. Equally, the clause does not affect the use of material obtained by a designated ICRIR—I am just going to say “the commission”—officer, for example when exercising police powers. This would ensure that the content of an interview given by a suspect while under caution, as part of a criminal investigation, could be used in criminal proceedings in the normal way.
I hope that goes some way to addressing the concerns of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme in respect of Clauses 7 and 23. If not, I am more than happy to sit down with him with my officials and go through it in greater detail, well in advance of the next stage of the Bill.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, deals with the five-year limit. We believe that five years is a reasonable limit for families or survivors to request a review into a death or serious injury. This five-year limit will also apply to individuals who want to come forward and apply for immunity of their own volition. The time limit will ensure that individuals have sufficient time to consider their engagement with the commission, while rightly providing the body with sufficient certainty within which it will be best able effectively to manage its caseload and conclude its work in a timely manner.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme that making this open-ended would be mistaken and risk prolonging the work of the body, perhaps indefinitely. The Stormont House agreement envisaged that the work of both the HIU and the ICIR—the information recovery body—would be wound up within five years: they would conduct all the investigations and information recovery processes within five years. This Bill says that families have five years in which to approach the new commission. Thereafter, the commission will be able to deal with the caseload for as long as it exists. This is going much further and being more generous than the Stormont House agreement.
I cannot remember who asked about preparatory work and the starting time for the five-year period, but it is from commencement of the commission. The five-year period begins with the coming into being of the actual body and does not start with the commencement of the Bill; it is from commencement of the operation of the body.
My noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn raised an important point. The family, the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland can refer cases within a five-year period. Once referred, there are no time restrictions on referring conduct to prosecutions, as long as the body remains in operation.
I turn to the amendment probing our definition of serious harm, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The remit of cases that the commission will  consider will clearly be wider than that of previously proposed bodies, including in the Stormont House agreement, which looked only at deaths. The commission will look not just at deaths but at serious injuries which occurred during the Troubles. A number of noble Lords referred to the concerns of the victims’ commissioner on this matter. I have met the victims’ commissioner twice in the past fortnight, so I am well aware of his views.
I turn back to the Bill. As set out in Clause 1, the detail of this definition is intended to help potential applicants to have a good sense as to whether their level of injury and therefore case would be accepted by the commission. Where an Article 3 procedural obligation arises in relation to a case not involving either death or harmful conduct causing
“serious physical or mental harm”
under Clause 1(6), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the power to request that the ICRIR carries out a review. One of the points brought out by the debate is the difficulty of drawing up comprehensive lists in this area. This is an honest attempt to be as comprehensive as possible. I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the powerful points made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who made a very effective contribution. I will take this away and look at it again.
On the repetition of reviews that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, sought to address in her amendment, Clause 11(7) says that
“the Commissioner for Investigations … must ensure that the ICRIR does not do anything which duplicates any aspect”
of a previous review unless duplication is deemed absolutely necessary. We agree with the noble Baroness in her intent that there should not be endless duplication of previous reviews, but we are confident that the legislation as drafted will ensure that does not happen.
The noble Baroness referred in passing to the McKerr group of cases in Strasbourg. I have signed off responses to the Council of Europe on these cases over many years, so I can assure her that the Northern Ireland Office is far from inert or inactive in defending the UK Government’s position on these matters.
Turning to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on Operation Denton, we are very much aware of Denton’s unique status as a cross-border thematic review following on from the Barnard judgment in 2019. We are aware that Operation Denton intends to conclude its work, as the noble Lord reminded the Committee, by spring 2024. Where the outcomes of such operations are imminent, the practical effect of the Bill should not be to prevent the timely transmission of information to families. While we do not see the need to reference specific reviews in the legislation, we are open to considering further how best we can ensure that the legislation delivers this priority. Again, I am content to discuss this matter further with the noble Lord and the others who signed his amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I am very grateful to him for his words about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which I think echoed my own from the previous debate. The issue of resources is covered by a later group of amendments, so I will respond to that point then.
Transparency is covered by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. We agree with him on the importance of transparency as a principle encompassing this process, which is why the commission will be under a duty to issue a publicly available family report in each case where a review has been carried out as a result of a family request or a request by the Secretary of State or others listed in the legislation. But we are concerned that transparency must be balanced with other considerations such as natural justice, the public interest in identifying perpetrators and the wishes of families.
There is nothing in the legislation to prevent reviews being carried out in public, but we consider that the extent to which they are is probably best left to the commission to determine. We also consider it important that, as far as appropriate, the commission’s decision-making policies and practices are explained publicly, and we will want to see this achieved through the commission’s work. It is important that the commission follows best practice in how it communicates publicly in order to provide transparency, but also in how transparency is provided through engagement with families, victims and survivors.
On the noble Lord’s amendment dealing with the obligation to answer questions, the Government’s view is that we agree with the intention of the amendment but that it is not necessary because the commission can already require an individual to attend at an appointed time and place and to provide information. This will include the provision of information orally, including answering questions.
In conclusion, and in asking noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group, I stress again that I am very happy to continue discussing all the issues in this group following Committee and in advance of Report.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, I agree that this has been a very thoughtful and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said—respectful debate. It is probably the kind of debate that shows the strength of this Chamber in Committee, looking at a Bill in some detail and putting forward suggestions and improvements to it, even though—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others have said—some of us still face a dilemma as to whether the Bill is actually improvable. For many of us, it is still a fundamentally flawed Bill.
Earlier I did not mention the other amendments in the group, but I particularly highlight Amendment 147 and the powerful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hain. These are issues I hope we can return to before the passage of the Bill is complete, and I welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that.
There is also the important question of accidental consequences of the five-year limit. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made a powerful speech giving examples of where there is a cliff edge. Cases could accidentally be dropped, which would be unfortunate.
I thank the Minister very much for his response to Amendment 1 and welcome that we can perhaps discuss this in more detail. I think we all feel—the noble Lord, Lord Weir, expressed it very clearly in his support of  this amendment—that we really do not want accidental consequences. I feel it would be very positive indeed if we examined this further between now and Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed.

  
Clause 2: The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery

Amendment 2

Baroness O'Loan: Moved by Baroness O'Loan
2: Clause 2, page 3, line 13, after “out” insert “investigations and”Member’s explanatory statementThis and other similar probing amendments in the name of Baroness O’Loan impose a function of investigation on the ICRIR as well as the function of review.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 to 4 in my name and the consequential amendments in this group. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I will not speak to each amendment, as in many cases the purpose is clear. The amendments are necessary to place the investigation function clearly in the Bill on each occasion on which it is relevant.
It is important to say that the Bill relates only to incidents that occurred before the agreement signed on 10 April 1998. It does not refer to atrocities arising during the Troubles that occurred after April 1998. For example, PSNI security statistics show that, in the past 10 years, 23 people have been killed in the Troubles; there have been 304 bombing incidents and 477 shooting incidents; more than 1,500 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act; and 235 people have been charged with terrorist offences. Terrorism is alive and well in Northern Ireland, though not to the scale—thank goodness—of previous atrocities. Most recently, two men have been charged with the murder of Lyra McKee in Derry in 2019. Noble Lords will probably be aware that it is believed that was an attempt to kill a police officer.
The Bill seeks to provide a process for dealing with what happened between 1966 and 1998. The most recent, generally accepted solution was contained in the Stormont House agreement. Despite all that the Minister has said about the Stormont House agreement—and I accept that in some respects the Bill improves on what was in it—the Government have provided a Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, is fundamentally flawed.
As I said in the previous debate, the Bill is not considered to be compliant with the UK’s international legal obligations or even with our own rule of law. I have listed organisations such as the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the US State Department and most recently the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the US Congress.
Unless I have missed something, I do not think the Minister has responded on the matter of the breaches of international law involved in the failure to provide Article 2-compliant investigation and the fact that the immunity proposals are not compliant with the obligations the Government are under. It is for this reason that there are so many amendments to the Bill today.
Clause 2, as we know, establishes an ICRIR and sets out its functions. The primary function of the commission according to the Bill is to carry out reviews of deaths and other harmful conduct forming part of the Troubles and to report on those reviews. That provision for review is not compatible with the ECHR obligation on the state to provide some form of official investigation when individuals have been killed by the use of force. As the Supreme Court stated in McQuillan and others—and I will not read that quotation again—there is a duty of investigation under the convention where people have suffered in this way.
As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said, the immediacy of the proposed changes to a victim’s access to justice within the current draft of the Bill closes off any pursuit of justice outside the ICRIR and is therefore not compatible with human rights and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Under the Good Friday agreement—an international agreement between the United Kingdom and Ireland—there must be ongoing implementation of the rights under the ECHR and remedies for breaches of the convention. Neither of these is provided in this Bill.
Amendments 2 and 3 provide that a function of the commission is to carry out investigations, not just reviews. Reviews report on the state of the matter in a particular case. A review may point to investigative opportunities, but it will not be an investigation. Criminal investigation, on the other hand, is the process through which a crime is examined and evidence is sought which may or may not be currently available or held by those who have previously examined the matter. International policing agreements for the exchange of information between states provide for the exchange of information only where there is an investigation and not a review.
Often, as I have said, the investigations completed were inadequate. They were not in any way compliant with Article 2. They were limited by circumstances and on occasion, I think, by misguided attempts to keep in place assets—informants—who were involved in the most serious crime.
For example, an inquest is currently under way into the killing of three IRA members in Coagh in Country Tyrone in 1991. It is believed that the SAS was involved. The investigating officer in that case has told the coroner that he was instructed by a Special Branch officer or possibly the then chief constable, who has denied the allegation, not to investigate the allegation that, as the coroner said,
“there in fact was a plan to kill these people”.
The inquest continues.
The reality in this case, as in so many others, is that officers were not permitted to investigate and therefore the information or evidence has to be secured through a new investigation. The UK is under an obligation to facilitate such investigation. This Bill would remove that.
Amendment 76 from the Minister purports to address the absence of a function of investigation as required by the Good Friday agreement, the ECHR et cetera. It does not provide the extensive obligations involved in the duty which were described by the Supreme Court in the McQuillan case. It does not insert a process which meets the requirements of Articles 2 and 3; rather, it leaves more uncertainty. For this reason, my Amendments 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 provide for ECHR-compliant investigations and reporting on them. It is implicit in those processes that the procedural requirements of the right to a fair trial et cetera are complied with.
Amendment 38 provides that information must be provided by the specified holders of that information not only for review purposes but for investigation. Amendment 46 attempts to address the current deficit in taking into account the views of victims and survivors and the family members by inserting into Clause 9 a right for a family member to request not only a review but the more extensive investigation required by the current law. Amendment 47 removes the requirement that it must be
“appropriate for that family member to make that request”.
I am not altogether clear why that provision is included, but it lacks clarity as to who might make the decision as to the appropriateness of the family member making the request. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Amendments 48 to 51 allow, respectively, for senior law officers, the Secretary of State, the coroners in Northern Ireland, England and Wales, the sheriff in Scotland, the procurator fiscal in Scotland and the Lord Advocate to request not only a review but an investigation. Amendments 53 and 54 to Clause 10 would provide for a person who has suffered harmful conduct covered by the Bill as well as the Secretary of State to seek an investigation rather than a review.
Amendments 55 and 56 to Clause 11 enable a person to request that an investigation include questions about the death or harmful conduct. Very often, family members and those who have suffered have by their own efforts secured significant information about what happened, often at significant risk to themselves. Not only are they able to provide that information to an investigator but because of what they have established they can point out questions which should be asked and possible investigative leads or lines.
Amendments 57 to 62 and Amendments 64 and 65 provide necessary consequential amendment to Clause 11 to reflect the operation of the new function of investigation in addition to the function of review. Family members are vital to any investigation, as anybody who has been involved in an investigation knows.
Amendments 66 and 67 to Clause 12 empower the commission to carry out investigations where a person is seeking immunity and that person’s conduct caused death or harm to another person. Amendments 68 to 70 to Clause 13 provide similar adjustments to that clause in an attempt to make it compliant with our legal obligations.
Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, introduces a requirement that reviews are carried out to criminal justice standards as modelled on Operation Kenova, which is inquiring into various  republican terrorism activities and allegations in connection therewith. Again, I declare an interest as a member of the international steering group of Kenova. I support this amendment, although I am of the view that Kenova investigates rather reviews; it is a very powerful investigation.
Amendment 147, which we have dealt with, deals with the matter of the review in Denton. This is a completely different exercise. Indeed, it is a review. Amendment 82 enhances the power of the commissioner for investigations in relation to the supply of information by extending to them the investigation function, which is essential.
The remaining amendments in my name in this group would make all the necessary consequential changes to place in the Bill the obligations that the UK has in cases of deaths resulting from violence during the relevant period and cases involving allegations of torture in terms of the processes to be adopted by the commission in the conduct of its business. By using only the term “review”, the Bill as drafted is insufficient, even taking into account government Amendment 76, since it does not, as has been roundly stated internationally and repeatedly, impose the duties and obligations inherent in the existing legal obligations of the UK, which are guaranteed under the Good Friday agreement. Noble Lords have repeatedly acknowledged in this House the importance of not undermining that agreement. I beg to move.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I support Amendment 2, which has been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I shall speak specifically to Amendment 72 standing in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am grateful for their support and for the backing that these amendments have had from victims’ groups in Northern Ireland, especially the WAVE Trauma group, which, notably, represents victims from all parts of the community. That breadth of support is also the case for Amendments 112 and 124, which are also in our names.
Amendments 72, 112 and 124 form a coherent whole and a coherent alternative to this most objectionable Bill by putting on a statutory basis a process for addressing the legacy of the Troubles that will command cross-community, cross-party and cross-victim-group support where this Bill, with or without the government amendments tabled by the Minister, most certainly does not. With or without those government amendments, the Bill remains totally toxic. Our amendments would transform the Bill into a consensual one, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Defence Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary to support them, because if not then we will need to divide the House on them.
I come to this issue of legacy not from a legal or policing perspective; there are other noble Lords who have that experience, and no doubt they will speak to these amendments and others, drawing on their expertise. I come to it, as I know others will, with a degree of humility, trying to put myself in the shoes of those who are looking to us—looking specifically to your Lordships’ House to do this in a way that the Commons  so palpably failed to do—to help them to try to address issues that have scarred them emotionally and psychologically, and in some cases physically, for decades. As I made clear at Second Reading and in the debates on the committal Motion, I do not think that the Bill as drafted does that in any way. Indeed, I think that for many it will have the most devastatingly adverse impact. I have proposed amendments that would turn a terrible Bill into one that could command acceptance.
As I have said before, I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Caine, his task of taking this legislation through the House. Given his long experience in Northern Ireland and the great respect in which the whole House holds him for his knowledge and care for Northern Ireland, I doubt very much that, had he been asked to frame legislation to try to deal with the pain and trauma of Northern Ireland’s horrifically violent past, he would have come up with the Bill before us or indeed the amendments that he has tabled on behalf of the Government to try to remedy its most awful features. Bluntly, his tweaks here and there do not fix this fundamentally flawed Bill.
With his customary courtesy, the Minister wrote to Peers in advance of Committee, and I thank him for that, as I do for the meetings that he has readily offered to me and others to discuss the matter. In that letter, the Minister writes that he understands that
“for many in Northern Ireland the legislation is extremely challenging”.
I am afraid to say that in this context the Civil Service word “challenging”—I recognise it from my ministerial experience—must enter the lexicon of ironic political euphemism. To the victims and survivors of the Troubles, who should be at the heart of what we are trying to do, this is not challenging; it is devastating.
We have been told that the Government has been engaging with key stakeholders since Second Reading. Government Ministers and officials may well have heard what victims and survivors have had to tell them, but I am afraid they have not listened. They still seem intent on seeing though a kind of Faustian pact between the state and those who brought injury, death and destruction to thousands of our citizens. Putting the interests of perpetrators though a low-bar immunity process over the needs of victims is not only morally corrupt; it is politically disastrous.
Have the Government considered why every political party in Northern Ireland, every victim group, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission oppose the Bill? Have they considered why the leaders of the main churches in Northern Ireland have come together to oppose it, or why it is opposed by the Irish Government and the US Administration? How can a Government who face that kind of opposition from the very people to whom they purport to be trying to bring some kind of resolution even contemplate forcing this legislation through, with or without the amendments so far tabled by the Minister? Far from helping reconciliation and healing, which all of us want on all sides of the House, it will perpetuate the running sore of unresolved legacy issues for years to come—the dark shadow that hangs over Northern Ireland and has done for generations.
The Government’s amendments that we are discussing later do not turn a bad Bill into an acceptable one. I urge noble Lords not to see them as evidence that the Government have listened to reasoned arguments and come up with solutions that can be nodded through. I hope, by the way, that they will not be nodded through in Committee. The current legislation refers throughout to a “review”, and I do not think the government amendments change that position. I am afraid I do not see the amendments as evidence that the Government have listened to reasoned arguments or come up with solutions that can seriously address them.
One of the genuine concerns of many victims and survivors is that the case of their loved one was never properly investigated in the first place, as I referred to earlier. In many cases at the height of the Troubles, there were understandable security reasons why proper investigations by the then RUC just were not possible, but those families still want to know that their loved one mattered. They know that the chances of getting justice in court are beyond remote. Out of the 2,000 cases investigated by the Historical Enquiries Team, just three resulted in prosecutions. The chances of these cases being resolved in the courts are minimal, but they want to know that their loved one’s case will now be properly investigated, notwithstanding the passage of time, and that all the information that can be recovered will be.
As I said, the current legislation refers throughout to a “review”. What many fear—and there are good grounds for that fear, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, touched on earlier—is that all that will happen will be a superficial look at existing police files, and no more than that, which will reveal very little. There is nothing in the legislation as currently drafted or in the government amendments that sets out the minimum standard that any family can expect from a review.
The Minister’s amendments, including those that we will debate later on in our proceedings, simply say that the investigations commissioner may conduct a criminal investigation as part of a review. That will not reassure those who have had so-called criminal investigations in the past that have not been effective. At the material time, much of the information that police needed to properly investigate murders was hidden in files that were not made available to them. To do this job properly—as Operation Kenova, on which we have explicitly based our Amendment 72, joined by Amendments 112 and 124, which are to be debated later, has shown—there must be unfettered access to those files. What is set out in the Government’s amendments does not achieve that.
Moreover, the Explanatory Notes refer to access to
“all relevant material that is reasonably required”.
That is not the kind of unfettered access that former chief constable Jon Boutcher, who leads the Kenova team and who is producing information and lines of inquiry never revealed before, says is essential for an information recovery process to be effective.
No one is more aware than Jon Boutcher of the need to ensure that an individual’s life is not put in danger by the release of sensitive information. No one is more aware of what “national security” means in the context of dealing with highly classified material  than I am as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But Operation Kenova has shown, and continues to show, that very effective work in this area can be carried out, and has been carried out, provided there is access to the files. That is the standard by which a legacy information recovery process should be judged.
We have a working example in Kenova and it is an example that should be followed. No doubt we will hear from the Government that to work to a Kenova model would be too expensive, and that the process would take many years to complete. Indeed, these points have been put to Jon Boutcher. His response is: “poppycock”. I urge noble Lords to read his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 21 June 2022. Our amendments, which have cross-party support, address this issue and, again, I urge the Minister to accept these amendments or a technical tweak of them. If he does, every victims’ group and every political party will cheer him on. Victims and survivors, and indeed wider society in Northern Ireland and beyond, deserve far better than mere government tweaking of this terrible Bill.
Proposed new Section (3A)(a) in Amendment 72 seeks to establish
“minimum standards for a ‘review’ conducted by the ICRIR”—
the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. Families who engage with this process must have confidence that investigations into their legacy cases will be effective. Proposed new Section (3A)(b) requires that the ICRIR
“complies fully with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights”.
The Bill as currently drafted would seem to fall well short of that—a point made compellingly by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
It is clear that there are particular problems in investigating historic cases that often go back several decades—we all know that. Operation Kenova has shown that many of those difficulties can be overcome and families who have been through investigations by the RUC, the PSNI, the police ombudsman or the Historical Enquiries Team in the past will confirm that the process led by Jon Boutcher works. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; we have a model with a proven track record of putting families first while carrying out robust investigations into Troubles-related deaths. The model works in the context of legacy cases precisely because the needs of victims and survivors are at the core of Kenova’s truth recovery work. That must be the case in any process that seeks to deal with legacy and to bring some degree of closure to those who have unanswered questions about the deaths of their loved ones.
That requirement is set out explicitly in proposed new Section (3A)(c). Crucially, if new evidential lines of inquiry emerge as a result, those could lead to a file being submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for consideration for prosecution, as in proposed new Section (3A)(d); in other words, there should be no amnesty—the law should follow its course.
Very often the answers to the questions families have lie in files that the original police investigation simple did not get access to even if the existence of them was known. Any legacy investigation process—any  credible one with integrity—must have unfettered access to those files, as Kenova has. Jon Boutcher has developed an excellent professional working relationship with all sections of the state’s security apparatus and that should be the model for any process that comes out of this legislation. Anything less will not be good enough and that is why the Kenova model must, in my submission, be adopted.
One of the sources of huge frustration for families dealing with these painful cases outside the Kenova process is that they have little or no contact with the investigations. They have no idea whether they are active or have been shelved. They have no updates, no reports. That is not how Kenova works: there is regular contact with the families and regular updates.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I apologise and crave the indulgence of the Committee. On the point that those who are dealing with certain ongoing investigative processes get no updates, as police ombudsman I established a process of six-weekly updates for complainants. I know that the police ombudsman has contact with the families and a lot of very good work has been done on that process. It is for that reason that there is confidence in the police ombudsman processes. I can tell the Committee that the police ombudsman has no power to investigate anyone other than police officers. That is the deficit there: it is that they cannot investigate civilians or soldiers. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for the intervention.

Lord Hain: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her interruption. She makes a telling correction, or at least clarification, to the point I make. I agree with her, and take her point entirely, especially having worked with her and respected her for her work when I was Secretary of State.
However, there is regular contact with the families and regular updates; that should be the model adopted going forward. Not only is Kenova a model of effective police work and a model for how to work with the families concerned but it has the most robust governance and oversight structures in place. Two of our distinguished colleagues in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, serve on one such body, along with those who have extensive international policing experience. That is the model that should be adopted for any investigative process coming out of this legislation.
In bringing my remarks on this amendment to a close, I confess that I am still not absolutely sure where the Government stand on Operation Kenova. For a time, the mantra was trotted out at official and ministerial level that Kenova could not be said to be successful because no prosecutions had resulted. This was disingenuous at best. The Secretary of State who peddled this line knew full well that over 30 files sat with the seriously overstretched and underresourced Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland and have now done for three years or so. I will refer more to this in the debate on Amendment 136. If cases do not come before the courts for whatever reason, one cannot blame the investigation. Now it is conceded by Ministers and officials that Kenova does good work,  but we are told it could not be upscaled, because it would be too expensive and investigations would take far too long. Jon Boutcher has made it clear that in his view the essential elements of Operation Kenova could be upscaled and investigations completed within a manageable timescale and not at an eye-watering cost.
I said at the outset that this is bad legislation. Our amendments could turn it into acceptable legislation and surely the Government are therefore duty bound to accept them.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and will speak briefly in its support. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the way in which she introduced this mammoth group of amendments.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, and to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I kept thinking of those immortal words from the Irish story: “I wouldn’t have started from here.” What we have is a terrible ragbag of a Bill. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that if our amendment were accepted, the Bill would be very significantly improved. However, we really need to go back to the drawing board here. The Bill is far too complicated and complex. It tries to treat a whole range of people with what I would call an artificial equality and, in the process, upsets everybody. We have heard that quoted time and again, at Second Reading and in the debates today. You cannot please everybody; you have to try to be fair and just. In particular, you must have regard for those who have been slaughtered or maimed in terrible incidents of which they were not the perpetrators and where they were seeking to defend what was right.
The House does not need me to give a whole series of encapsulations of dreadful events such as Enniskillen. But we cannot have this Bill because it does not recognise—as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, put it graphically earlier in our debate today—for instance, the proper desserts of the veterans of those forces who were seeking to defend, and who were not engaged in terrorist acts.
I paid tribute earlier, very genuinely, to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Caine. None of us envies him his task today. We all sympathise with him and we all know that his heart is most certainly in the right place. But the Bill has to be filleted and replaced by a Hain provision, as in the noble Lord’s Amendment 72, with much of it discarded. Otherwise, it will be a question of going back to the drawing board, having some proper pre-legislative scrutiny and seeking to come up with something that is just and fair—and regarded as such by those whom it is ostensibly designed to help, because nobody is helped by the Bill if it is enacted in the way the House has before it tonight.
I said earlier that I supported the initial amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, which I did. I also accepted her recognition of the fact that this House has to perform its constitutional duty. But this House will not be performing that duty if it allows the Bill, in anything like its present form, to go on to the  statute book. I will leave it at that, but I wish my noble friend the Minister all success in his endeavours, because I know that he wants to get this right.

Lord Blair of Boughton: My Lords, I need to apologise for not attending Second Reading, but I want to support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. We need to understand what Kenova is, and it is worth going back to understanding that it is an investigation of 200 murders. It is probably the most complex investigation in British criminal history. It also involves allegations of kidnap and torture.
In October, Jon Boutcher wrote this, which I want to read into the record:
“The Kenova interim report will address what was, and was not, happening between organisations; the Provisional IRA and its Internal Security Unit, the police, armed forces, intelligence services and their agents and informants. In particular it will focus on”
the Provisional IRA,
“which committed these murders and whether steps were, or were not taken by the security forces before these abductions and murders occurred to protect people, or subsequently to bring those responsible to justice. It will also comment on the state’s approach to investigating such cases and the nigh on impossible operating environment that confronted the security forces”.
He went on to say this about the Bill:
“My commitment to publishing the results of all of the Kenova investigations remains as strong as ever and this takes us a step closer to achieving this. While there is much discussion about the future of legacy following the Government proposed Bill, the Bill should not impact the release of Kenova’s findings”.
I simply could not agree more.
In a month’s time, it will be 48 years since the murder of a young man with whom I trained at the Peel Centre in Hendon. Stephen Tibble was five months younger than me and a month ahead in training; He was shot dead in west London by the IRA. For the first 15 years of my career, the world of Irish republican terrorism spread not only from Ireland to the rest of the UK but in particular to London. Quite a lot of Metropolitan Police officers also lost their lives in this struggle.
I join with those who have said that the Good Friday agreement was one of the great moments of our lives, because it is not for me to put myself forward in that way. The idea that the Bill will allow a way to end investigations into these terrible atrocities seems completely appalling. Personally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the Bill is not amended to be run on Kenova terms, we must in the end oppose and defeat it in this House.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I have already added my name as a signatory to those amendments and to those in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain in relation to Kenova. In relation to the amendments to do with investigations, I want to see these investigations as an avenue to justice, so that that justice is still open to victims and members of the public. Investigations must not be closed down and justice must be provided for. The question arises: why would the Government want to remove investigations and who does this benefit?
The review process, which I think is to be undertaken by the ICRIR, is unlikely to meet all the requirements of an independent and effective investigation with the participation of next of kin, in line with the ECHR. Many believe that the main damage the legacy Bill will do is in closing off all the routes to justice that currently exist in Northern Ireland and replacing them with a single new body that has insufficient powers and is constituted in a manner likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights—hence the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. They are absolutely vital because we want to see investigations and access to inquests. We want to see proper justice and truth recovery for all.
As I understand it, the ICRIR will lose those investigatory powers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, will correct me if I am wrong in the next respect: that the police ombudsman will be prevented from investigating matters related to the Troubles, on top of the limitation on dealing with complaints already in the Bill. Legislation for dealing with police complaints in Scotland, England and Wales will also be blocked off from applying to Troubles-related conduct.
I had direct contact with the police ombudsman’s office in relation to the Loughinisland inquiry. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, initiated that inquiry, which I think was way back in 2004—it seems such a long time ago. It was practically complete by the time she left and was then taken over by her successor, who did not see avenues of collusion. I remember saying at that time that he was being unfair to the victims and families, and that he should vacate the post. I think I said it in terms that were stronger and a little more derogatory than those, if I cast my mind back to 2011.
In the subsequent report by a previous police ombudsman, Michael Maguire, it was quite clear that he had worked further with families and with members of the RUC and the PSNI. He discovered large avenues of collusion in the midst of our community being perpetrated against ordinary people and denigrating very good police officers who were operating according to the rule of law. We must always remember that.
While the UK authorities continue to claim that the ICRIR reviews will be capable of Article 2 compliant investigations, using full police powers, human rights organisations such as the Committee on the Administration of Justice assert that this will not be the case, particularly for those who avail of the immunities scheme. Police powers will not be exercisable against persons who cannot be subject to criminal proceedings for an offence as they have immunity for it. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who says that, unless we—or rather the Government—go back to the drawing board, the Bill, as it is currently drafted, will fail before it even starts, because it does not command the respect of victims, political parties or the churches in Northern Ireland. Unless it has that cross-community support and support from victims, it is redundant.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain about Kenova. We all know of the good work that has been done by Jon Boutcher, particularly in relation to Kenova, the investigations into the activities of the alleged agent known as Stakeknife, the Provisional IRA and the security forces. The interim  Kenova report is drafted and about to enter a process of representation for those who will be adversely impacted by its findings. One thing that Mr Boutcher has done is liaise with the victims and their families at every possible avenue; they know exactly what is going on and what the next steps will be. He does that in a sympathetic and empathetic way, while also being very assertive in the job he has to do. Another amendment deals with the PPS in Northern Ireland being properly resourced to ensure that those files are not left lying on the shelf without any form of prosecution. So I am very happy to support all the amendments in this group, as I believe that the Kenova model, because it establishes the minimum standards for an ICRIR review, would be a very good model, if the Minister would consider accepting it.
While I am very happy to support the amendments in this group and to add my name to some of them, I feel that the current proposals in the Bill do not fulfil what is required for investigations. Yesterday morning, I listened to an actor playing the role of a victim who had been subjected to a paramilitary shooting. It did not say where he lived in Northern Ireland, but he was subjected to the most horrendous shooting incident that was witnessed by his own daughter through their front window after he returned from the pub. He was set upon by about three or four gentlemen and shot; to all intents and purposes, it was a punishment shooting. Therefore, in terms of that particular incident, I firmly believe that investigations must be central, because we have to find out who is responsible for those acts of terror.
Alan McBride was on the radio today speaking about Kenova. He is part of the WAVE Trauma Centre, and his wife sadly died in the Shankill Road bombing in October 1993. He is a firm believer in the Kenova model, because he believes that that would establish the minimum standards for ICRIR reviews and because it commands respect across the community and of so many victims’ groups—particularly WAVE, which has done such good work in this regard.
So I am very happy to support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, because investigations must go along with reviews; without investigations, review is redundant and it makes the Bill redundant.

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 34 about human rights, to which the noble Lords, Lord Godson, Lord Empey and Lord Bew, have added their names.
Human rights are usually invoked by people in support of their political position, without actually admitting or understanding that there is always a conflict of rights in most situations. This could not be more true of legacy in Northern Ireland. One right is always mentioned—Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to life—but of course there are other ECHR rights that should arise in a legacy debate. Article 6 is the right to a fair trial, which has implications for those whom the ICRIR will consider in its reinvestigations and public reports. Article 8 is  the right to respect for private and family life, which applies to an even wider range of people caught up in every Troubles death, especially those who served in our Armed Forces and the police. Article 10 concerns freedom of expression and the right to a reputation, and this applies to another group, including those who are critical of lawfare for different reasons but who fail to get much reported by our state broadcaster in Northern Ireland, BBC Northern Ireland.
For over 20 years, following the McKerr judgment of the European Court in May 2001, the slogan “Not Article 2 Compliant” has been thrown around, not just by the advocates of lawfare but by too many figures in the criminal justice system. In the McKerr case—he was a member of the IRA killed on active service in November 1982 by members of the RUC—Strasbourg invented a new right. The court did not say that the UK had violated McKerr’s substantive Article 2 right to life, but the seven human rights judges said that a new right had been violated due to an alleged inadequate investigation. That right became known as “Article 2 procedural”. The UK was required to continue to investigate and to ensure that
“the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure”.
I am sorry to say that, in the context of Northern Ireland and terrorism, there are some relatives who might have an interest greater than justice, such as discrediting the way police officers and soldiers resisted republican and loyalist terrorism during the decades of the Troubles—and Strasbourg does not deign to notice that.
There is a second McKerr line of cases in the House of Lords, and later the Supreme Court, which the Committee on the Administration of Justice and academics never mention. On 2 October 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. The House of Lords, in another McKerr judgment in 2004, said that Article 2 compliant investigations did not apply to deaths before that October 2000 date. This position was left in place in domestic law by our judges in the McCaughey case in 2011, the Keyu case, a Malaysian case, in 2015, and the Finucane case in 2019. Then, in December 2021, in a key Northern Ireland case called McQuillan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule of no Human Rights Act requirement for such investigations —which, essentially, were reinvestigations—before October 2000, with a qualification, based on some controversial Strasbourg jurisprudence, that a 10-year pushback was permissible. The helpful headline in the Times Law Report read, “Northern Irish police are not required to re-investigate incidents from the Troubles”.
Solicitor Patrick Finucane was murdered by loyalists in February 1989, some 12 years before the human rights commencement date. His killers have been convicted but the need for reinvestigation—a public inquiry, as Strasbourg and his family demand—remains an open question. Some human rights lawyers query whether Strasbourg’s 10-year rule is even arguable under the Human Rights Act 1998. If the Supreme Court judgments are relied on to turn down a Finucane public inquiry, and the Supreme Court said that the Government, for various other reasons, were not obliged to have one, the matter should be over and we would save up to £100 million. For this reason, I believe that the Government need to beef up their responses at Strasbourg  —I note what the Minister said in answer to the previous debate about the Northern Ireland Office making overtures; it would be helpful if we could see some of those—because they have to start ignoring what is seen as an international lynch mob currently baying at the Northern Ireland Office over the Bill.
I look forward to the Minister explaining how, given the McQuillan judgment, much of Article 2 procedure now applies to the nearly 4,000 Troubles killings. In 2021, in a PSNI statement just after the judgment, Assistant Chief Constable Jonathan Roberts, who well understood the import of McQuillan, wrote:
“The Police Service welcome the clear legal ruling that there are no legal obligations arising from Article 2 ECHR to investigate these cases”,
including McQuillan. He continued:
“We will now carefully consider the judgments and their impact on the legacy caseload.”
Sadly, nothing visible has happened since that.
I am sure that, in answer to my amendment, the Minister will say that Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 means that all ECHR articles would apply to the ICRIR’s work. If the Government are being pushed by the CAJ and Strasbourg into Article 2 procedure—as they have been in Northern Ireland Amendment 76, which the Government will move—by adding criminal investigations to the review process, why can they not also say in the Bill, using the Minister’s phrase, that other ECHR articles, particularly Articles 6, 8 and 10, will be in play?

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments. First, I was struck during the debate by this distinction between investigations and reviews. Everyone agrees that investigations should follow but the question is whether there should be prosecutions. There are arguments around whether a review is really an investigation—do the families really get the facts? If we could agree that an investigation was not always followed by a prosecution, this may be something that we could start to agree on.
Secondly, it seems that there is a broad consensus that, as an approach, Kenova is good. The standards of connection to the families and of investigation have been supported by the people who most need this—namely, those who have lost family members.
Finally, there is a bit of a definitional issue around the difference between a review and an investigation, and we will have to address that at some point. One of the things about an investigation is that, obviously, there is always an interview with the suspect. It has to be conducted by the rules of evidence and there is the potential for a charge at the end. One of the dilemmas with any review, including Kenova, is that a review can consider material that is not evidence. I will make two broad points in that area.
First, as we have heard, Kenova is looking at intelligence material from other countries as well as from within the UK. It may be able to look at such material but it will not be able to quote it or quote it in a court. Secondly, it is impossible to use intercept material—intercepted communications, usually by telephone—as evidence in the UK unless it has been obtained in a jurisdiction in which it is legally possible to use it as  evidence. It is ironic, but that is our system. Reviews are able to consider telephone communications that may be indicative of, but not evidence of, certain actions or charges. That dilemma has to be resolved at some point because although the reviewer may be led by such communications to conclude that one particular person was responsible or a crime was committed in a certain way, they cannot quote it in a court of law—it regularly now has to be held back in serious and organised crime and terrorism cases. The only information that can be quoted in a court is the fact that the telephone call occurred, the time it occurred, who was at either end of the communication, and, more recently, where they were when they made the call, because there is information on mobiles. I raise this not because it is an easy answer for the Minister to give but because it is fair to put that dilemma in this domain.

Lord Hain: I thank the noble Lord for his support, which is extremely important. In making that important point, would he agree, with his long experience, that this kind of looking into the facts, if I can put it that way, through what I will call a review for these purposes, may not lead to that evidence going into court, for the reasons he explained, but could and does help considerably under Kenova, as I understand it, in the truth-recovery process, which is at the heart of this, in practical terms, for 99% of these cases, and what victims want?

Lord Hogan-Howe: I entirely agree. If you are able to say to a relative, “We are aware of a call and we know the content but we cannot tell you what was said”, you can start to fill that gap, which exists for every family, around what happened, when and how, and what the end was like—these are terrible questions to face, but it helps. I agree entirely: it is part of that truth-sharing, but, to be fair to everyone involved, I have to say that there is an evidential barrier which is available to help a reviewer but not a criminal charge.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, I will be extremely brief, given the hour and the desire to move on to the dinner break business. From these Benches, we very much support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to impose a function of investigation on the ICRIR, as well as one of review. She made very compelling arguments and I will not repeat them, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling in the debate on these amendments this evening.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 72 in this group, to which I have added my name. I was struck by the personal and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, as well as the practical suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for some ways forward. Perhaps we could take this forward with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, before Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the case powerfully that the process being used by Jon Boutcher in Operation Kenova has cross-party support and has acquired the confidence of all those who have been directly engaged in it. Perhaps most importantly, it demonstrably works. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. I suspect that virtually everyone  taking part in this debate has spoken to Jon Boutcher. If you meet him, it is hard not to be overwhelmingly impressed by his commitment, dedication and drive. He is really committed to this process, and we should seriously consider it between now and report.
I urge the Minister to look closely at Amendment 72. I look forward to his response at the end of this group, not least to some of the questions that have been asked on the Government’s response to the option of upscaling the processes used in Operation Kenova, which seems to me to be a preferable approach compared to the proposals in the Bill.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: My Lords, if I were still Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and someone had suggested to me that the Bill should be introduced and then, immediately after suggesting it, said that all the international bodies concerned with human rights, Members of Congress in the United States, every single political party in Northern Ireland, every Church in Northern Ireland, and more or less everyone in Northern Ireland was against it, you might understand what my response would have been. The Bill certainly would not have ended up in this Chamber.
What I do not underestimate is the problem that the Minister and Government face. Of course, we have to try to resolve these issues—we have been 25 years trying to resolve these issues, and we did not do it when we did the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, because there were all sorts of other things to do. We have tried and tried, not least with the Eames-Bradley report, which I am sure the noble and right reverend Lord remembers. However, there is a dilemma: should the Government abandon the Bill—should they dump it? I think they probably should—or should it be improved? That is the work of the House of Lords, which is trying to improve it, to see whether there is any consensus at all among political parties here and in Northern Ireland as to what should replace it.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, introduced a large number of very interesting amendments. They were not only interesting but in line with the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which is based on the European Convention on Human Rights in some respects. Each of those amendments, which she very ably spoke to, indicated how we could indeed have a situation in which reviews were replaced by investigations and stay within the European convention. At the moment, if you have a grievance, if you are a victim or the member of a family of a victim, you can have an inquest, go to civil action, go to criminal action and go to prosecution—and we are going to get a review. It is not good enough. The Minister and the Government have appreciated that, and presumably the Minister will touch on the amendment that would ensure that there could be investigations, if the Chief Commissioner so wished, which could replace the review. But they are not in compliance with the ECHR in the same way as in the amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
Of course, I must refer to my noble friend Lord Hain, who very successfully and, I think, memorably introduced his amendments on Operation Kenova,  about Jon Boutcher’s system and the methods that he has used over the last number of years. I have talked to him too, and he is a very considerable person in every respect. Operation Kenova could be used, as it is tried and trusted right across the board, and it would be an excellent alternative to the system that nobody wants. If you want this legislation to succeed, this is an ideal way—although of course it would have to be refined—to do that. I do not know the ins and outs of whether it would take longer or be more expensive and so on—but I think “poppycock” probably applies to that in every sense.
I hope that the Government will have a very serious look at this proposal, because it might save the Bill—not save it in the sense of whether it would go through the two Houses of Parliament, but save it in that, whatever happens here, if it goes back to Northern Ireland and nobody wants it, it is doomed. It is as a simple as that—but it could be saved. It is significant that we have had two former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police speak powerfully in favour of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hain. Perhaps above all else, the Operation Kenova system, if you can call it that, puts the victims at its very heart. Frankly, that is what is missing in the current proposals that the Government are putting forward—so I suggest to the Minister that it is not just worth considering but that he must consider it.

Lord Cormack: You are on!

Lord Caine: As if I need reminding. I am grateful to all who have contributed to this extensive and far-reaching debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to my all-Peers letter in which I described this legislation as “challenging”. I assure him that that word was not chosen by the Civil Service—it was inserted by me. I think that the intention could best be described as ironic understatement.
I am also grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, about the role of this House and the attempts to improve the Bill. I genuinely hope that, whether one agrees with my amendments or not—and I suspect from what I have heard across the Chamber that a large number of your Lordships would fall into the latter category—it is recognised that I am trying sincerely to improve the Bill as best as I can, and will continue in those endeavours.
On the various amendments before the Committee, as noble Lords are aware, the legislation establishes the commission to carry out reviews of Troubles-related deaths and incidents involving serious injury. I have tabled Amendment 76 to make it clear, I hope, beyond any doubt that the commissioner for investigations is to decide whether a criminal investigation should form part of a review in any case that is considered by the commission. I reiterate the point that, under the legislation currently before the Committee, “review” is intended to be an umbrella term that can include a criminal investigation. We have tried to take on board some of the concerns and criticisms over the use of that word.
In the Government’s view, the amendment that I have tabled would confirm very clearly that the Government can meet and deliver on their international obligations in respect of investigations. The Bill does  this by ensuring that the commissioner for investigations, as a person with the powers of a police constable, has access to the complete range of investigative measures, including as part of a criminal investigation, while giving them the discretion and flexibility to determine how they can best fulfil the needs of victims and survivors.
I completely understand that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who proposed a series of amendments, does not agree, and does not believe that the amendment goes far enough. In all honesty with your Lordships, I tread warily on this issue of the ECHR. I am not a lawyer, unlike the noble Baroness. The Government’s position on this is that obviously it follows that, when immunity is granted by the commission, the commission will not be capable of following that with a process leading to a prosecution or the punishment of an individual concerned. Nevertheless, the Government consider that result to be compatible with their international obligations, for the following reason. The absence of a prosecution or punishment outcome in individual cases where immunity is granted can, in the Government’s view, be justified on the basis that the conferral of such immunity in those circumstances, in a limited and specific way, is necessary to ensure the recovery of information about Troubles-related deaths or serious incidents that would not otherwise come to light. Such recovery is an important part of trying to help society in Northern Ireland move forward. I think we will touch on that issue further in a later group of amendments.
I turn to the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate or effective to stipulate that all reviews must entail criminal investigations, which would be the effect of Amendment 72, or that in some cases a criminal investigation, and only a criminal investigation, must be carried out. There are circumstances where families might wish simply to gain a further degree of information about something that happened on the day, about some specific aspect of what happened, and we would envisage that the commission in those circumstances might determine that a short review is all that is required to answer a small number of specific questions—and that information might be readily available in the archive of material available to the commission without having to go down the criminal investigation route.
We believe that stipulating that all reviews entail criminal investigation would—I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear me say this—add a significant amount of time and resource to how long it would take the body to work through its caseload and prevent it being able to prioritise appropriately. We are clear that, in all cases, the commission will be able to conduct full, effective investigations capable of discharging our obligations. The commission will have all the necessary powers to conduct investigations, including the powers and privileges of a police constable, the power to compel evidence from witnesses and full access to state records.
As I said in response to an earlier group, it is of course vital that the commission is informed by best practice from elsewhere, including Operation Kenova, which I agree with many noble Lords across the  Committee has achieved very positive outcomes in building strong relationships with victims and helping them to better understand the circumstances around what happened to their loved ones. Like many noble Lords across the Committee, I have met Jon Boutcher on a number of occasions and continue to engage with him, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has carried out—specifically for the way he has conducted relations with families.

Lord Hain: I understand the Minister’s point about some cases. The fear of victims is that “review” will be just a desktop job, that they will not be looked at—to underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made—to get at the truth in a way that Boutcher has been able to do. Yes, it does take time and resource, but if you do not know what the information is, because it is in files you have never had access to in the way that Jon Boutcher has, how can you possibly say that you can close off a case with a short review, even though it will cost less money?

Lord Caine: I am grateful. What I had in mind with short review is that if there are specific facts to which a family does not have ready access, they can go to the commission and ask: “We just want to know a bit more about what happened” on a particular day, and those facts can be very easily turned up by the commission, just by looking at its records, the archive, et cetera. That would be an appropriate way of responding to such a request.
To reiterate, the commissioner for investigations will have all the powers of a police constable, will have access to all the relevant information and, crucially in the legislation, will be somebody who has to have experience of investigations in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. So, it really will be for the director of investigations to exercise his or her judgment and discretion, but of course my amendment—I should say that we believe the legislation as drafted would allow for this anyway—makes it very clear that a full criminal investigation will be available to the commission should that be the decision of the director of investigations.

Lord Hain: Not the Secretary of State?

Lord Caine: Not the Secretary of State but the director of investigations, because the commission will be operationally independent from government.
In paying tribute to Jon Boutcher for the work he has done, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about scaling up Kenova. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but the noble Lord referred to Mr Boutcher’s evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the other place. He acknowledged that, while some aspects of his work could be built on and scaled up, not all of it could, so there are difficulties.
To give an example of the scale of this, the noble Lord’s amendment would require a criminal investigation in every case, and given that the Police Service of Northern Ireland currently has a caseload of around 1,000, the danger is that we would spend significant resource, but also, more importantly, significant time, dealing with this backlog, which would mean that we  would spend almost as long investigating the legacy of the Troubles as the Troubles themselves lasted, which I think is not something anybody wants.
On Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, she is absolutely right to predict some of my response, which is that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act would already place the commission, as a public authority, under a duty to act in a way compatible with all convention rights. In cases where prosecution remains a possibility, we would expect the body to follow best practice applicable to criminal investigations and to ensure that any subsequent criminal proceedings are not prejudiced because of deficiencies at the investigation stage.
I am conscious of time. To conclude, the Government are of the view that Amendment 76 in my name addresses the concerns raised by parliamentarians and international bodies: others will almost certainly disagree. In our view, it provides clear instructions to the commission, without needing to amend the entire legislation. I ask therefore that noble Lords do not press their amendments in this group, as I will not press mine, and we will return to discussions and debates on these matters at a later stage.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I thank all those very powerful voices that have been heard in the Chamber tonight. I also thank the Minister. I will speak briefly—I know noble Lords are all waiting for their dinner—but I want to say a word in response to the Minister’s assertion that the absence of prosecution can be justified on the basis that the conferral of immunity is necessary to ensure recovery of information which would not otherwise come to light. We will come back to this on group 6, but I cannot understand how the possibility of immunity leading to disclosure of hitherto unknown information justifies departure from the requirements of Article 2. In the conduct of an Article 2 investigation, as the Minister has said, there is a requirement to take note of and comply with not only the requirements of our own criminal law but the procedural requirements of Article 2 and the other articles of the convention.
With great respect, I think the Minister’s comments on the historic backlog, the 1,000 cases that the PSNI currently has and the need to deal with them as proposed in the Bill explain why the Bill is not Article 2- compliant. Although there is provision in the Bill for the establishment of an investigative arm of the commission, and for persons being accorded police powers, such as powers of arrest, search, seizure, et cetera, those powers are necessary to carry out investigations, and that means that the structural investigation construct of the Bill really resembles that of police forces, the Police Ombudsman, the IOPC and the NCA. What is different about the Bill are the arrangements for access to criminal investigations and the extent to which the Secretary of State is empowered by the Bill to provide guidance, which must be complied with unless it can be shown it is reasonable not to do so. The Secretary of State has other powers to control and regulate the operation of the commission. Those powers are excessive  and, I will argue, unnecessary, and they detract from the independence of investigation, which is fundamental to ECHR-compliant investigation.
I am not going to engage in argument with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the effect of McQuillan —we may come back to it anyway—but, having regard to the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Amendments 3 and 4 not moved.
House resumed.

National Health Service (Primary Dental Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
 - Motion to Regret

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the changes to dental contracts in the National Health Service (Primary Dental Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1132) will not have a significant impact on improving access to dental treatment whilst current workforce shortages persist.
Relevant document:18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is good as ever to know that dentistry excites such interest amongst your Lordships. I am very grateful for those noble Lords who are going to take part in what I think is a very important debate tonight.
Like many aspects of the NHS, our dental services are under great pressure at the moment. Indeed, there are reports that some patients are resorting to DIY dentistry and removing their own teeth because they cannot get access to an NHS dentist. In August 2022, the BBC reported that, based on a survey of 7,000 NHS practices, nine out of 10 NHS dental practices across the UK were not accepting new adult patients for treatment under the NHS. The BDA believes that NHS dentistry is facing, as it calls it,
“facing an existential crisis with the service hanging by a thread”.
The problem predates the pandemic, but it has now reached an unprecedented scale. The BDA estimates that over 40 million dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. Those from low-income or vulnerable groups are being disproportionately impacted, with 1 million new or expectant mothers having lost access to care since the start. Dentistry has been subject to cuts unparalleled in the NHS; in real terms, estimates suggest that net government spend on dentistry in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. The BDA argues that chronic underfunding and the current NHS dental contract are to blame for long-standing problems with burnout, recruitment and retention. We know morale among NHS dentists is very low, and we are facing an exodus of them from NHS practice.
The regulations before us today are welcome, but they will not turn this around. Under the regulations, subdividing band 2—putting more complex treatments into categories 2b and 2c—should hopefully reward dentists’ time and input more accurately. More generally on access, I understand the NHS has started commissioning “access sessions”, remunerated using a sessional fee in practices with an NHS contract in the north-east, using existing flexibilities within the current regulations. I hear that this scheme has worked very well, and I congratulate the commissioners and providers on this. Can the Minister confirm this and say whether it is to be rolled out across the country? I certainly think that this should be a priority. Because it can be done under existing regulations, and because of the protracted delay in moving from the long pilot scheme we have had to a new contract, this surely is an area where Ministers could make some progress in the short term, provided they provide resources to the health service to do so.
We are debating one element of a package that was announced by the Chief Dental Officer last year, designed to improve access. Two weeks ago, we agreed on one of those planks—regulations which gave dental care professionals the ability to open new courses of NHS dental treatment when they are trained and competent to do so. I do not want to go over the ground again; I think that this is a significant change that should be applauded, but there are still blockages in making it work effectively.
First, under previous regulations, a DCP would have needed a performer number to open a course of treatment, and with that would have come associated pension benefits. I understand that, under the recently issued guidance from the NHS, the DCP has to demonstrate competence by entering their GDC registration number, but the dentist whose performer number appears on the NHS form signing this off actually accrues the pension benefit. That does not seem to me to be fair, it is potentially discriminatory, and I wonder if the Minister could give me some justification for that, perhaps in writing.
Secondly, work has been going on for over a decade to allow DCPs to give local anaesthetics without having the direction of a dentist. Can I ask when that is going to be implemented?
Thirdly, given that the current system of remuneration of our dental schools means that it is much more attractive financially to train dentists, will they be incentivised to train more DCPs? If not, how are we going to see a substantial increase in DCPs? If I may just take the Minister back to our debate two weeks ago and the decision to exclude overseas dentists from working as DCPs, I still fail to see the justification for that.
The third plank of the package announced by the Chief Dental Officer to improve access was in relation to NICE guidance published in 2004. The concept of six-monthly recalls is embedded in our society and among patients, but it is not evidence-based and recall intervals need to be tailored to risk—in some cases, six months may be appropriate, but not all. The time taken up by unnecessary recalls could be used to grow access, and I would like to know how the Government intend to make sure this guidance is complied with.
Putting this all together, it is inevitable we come back to the issue of the critical shortage of workforce. Opening new dental schools is clearly one solution—I would like to see that—but we know that it takes up to 10 years from taking the decision to open a new school to clinicians entering the workforce. We clearly do not have 10 years, so we need to train more dentists, but in the near-term we have got to make NHS dentistry a more attractive option to improve retention of existing clinicians, while also making it easier for overseas dentists to work in the NHS.
The obvious way to make NHS dentistry more attractive to dentists in the UK is by increasing the budget for NHS dentistry. Given the real-terms cuts that we have seen—a quarter since 2010—this is essential.
In the short term, overseas dental professionals are one key to addressing the workforce pressures and ensuring access to NHS dentistry. One way that we can achieve this quickly is by streamlining the GDC processes for accepting individuals on to the register. This can be done by the UK striking more mutual recognition agreements for dental qualifications with countries of comparable standards and creating more places for the overseas registration exam. The GDC’s current mutual recognition of EEA-qualified dentists is also vital in boosting short-term applicant supply; this must not be removed.
Then there is the performers list validation by experience process, which all dentists not qualifying in the UK must go through to practise in the NHS—it needs standardising, simplifying, and streamlining. Does the Minister agree?
We also need to look at the work dentists do. I was briefed by BUPA that 24,272 dentists did some NHS work in England in 2021-22, but 15% of the workforce—almost 4,000 dentists—did no more than one patient course of NHS treatment a month on average; that seems quite extraordinary. How can that be justified? Can the Minister confirm that dentists do keep their performer number active by that process, which means that their historically earned NHS pension is dynamised on an annual basis? How can that possibly be justified?
Finally, we want to hear from the Government what priority they give to NHS dentistry. I put it to the Minister: is he content to see the dismantling of the service with access problems, piling up the misery of millions of people, and the frightening growth in self-treatment? Let me remind him of the BDA’s belief that
“NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat and patients face a growing crisis in access, with the service hanging by a thread.”
Are the Government essentially saying that they are content for this to happen? If not, then we need to see concrete plans to increase resources and the workforce to ensure that patients who want NHS treatment can get it in a timely way, confident in the quality of care they receive.
When I was Minister for Dentistry from 1999 to 2003, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair made a pledge that any patient who wanted to see an NHS dentist would be able to do so—and we achieved it. It can be done with strong leadership and the support of the profession. I hope the Minister will tell us whether the Government are going to go down that route tonight. I beg to move.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him for securing this debate and for so clearly setting out the pressing issues around dental treatment. He set out the massive, chronic underfunding—a quarter down since 2010—and the workforce problems. As he said, the regulations we are debating are an extremely modest, if welcome, step to address that to a very small degree.
I will take this opportunity to take a somewhat broader view of dental health and raise a couple of issues that are arising from the crisis of the lack of NHS dental provision. My first point draws on the WHO Global Oral Health Status Report, which was published in November 2022. It stressed that most oral diseases are fundamentally preventable through addressing the social and behavioural determinants, with risk factors such as tobacco, alcohol and sugars that are shared with many other non-communicable diseases. So the first question I put to the Minister is: are the Government really taking seriously the issue of addressing good oral health and public health conditions, which would have so many other positives in terms of issues such as obesity, diabetes, et cetera? Are the Government looking at this in this kind of way?
Secondly, the WHO global strategy on oral health says:
“Achieving the highest attainable standard of oral health is a fundamental right of every human being.”
I will refer here to an article published in the Lancet Public Health on 11 December last year by Winkelmann and other authors, which looked around the world at the different classes of oral health coverage available. There are four: no coverage at all, limited coverage, partial coverage, and comprehensive coverage. The UK, I am afraid, falls in the second of those four increasing levels of coverage: limited coverage. We know that the Government like to claim to be world-leading in many contexts, so do they have an aspiration at least to reach the comprehensive or advanced level of coverage identified in that study, which would mean making dental treatment available to all and ensuing a high quality of preventive public health provision?
My third point is on the issue of dental health tourism. This was prompted to the front of my head again this morning by sitting in a Tube carriage in which I was facing adverts saying, “Get your teeth fixed—go to Turkey”. A couple of days ago, there were a number of horror stories about this across the tabloid newspapers. I am not picking on Turkey in particular, because I do not have the stats on how many people are going where and what problems are arising—but I do not believe that the Government have stats on what is happening with dental health tourism or those problems, either.
As I understand it, there is no reliable source of data on all outbound UK medical tourism, whether it be dental or other forms, but the ONS has estimated that 248,000 UK residents went abroad for medical treatment in 2019. I assume that quite a number of those treatments were probably dental. Indeed, in a recent article the Guardian quoted the editor-in-chief of the International Medical Travel Journal—it is  interesting that there is a journal on such a thing—saying that this was going up fast. Are the Government going to collect any stats on both dental tourism and other forms of medical tourism? Are they going to publish those? Are they going to look into whether this is an issue, in which case the stats would clearly be a starting point? Does the Minister agree with me that when these operations go wrong overseas, we will end up seeing the UK dental health system and general health system ultimately having to pick up the pieces?
I come now to my final point. Your Lordships’ House will shortly be engaging, I suspect at some considerable length, with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. It is worth stressing how much dental health issues are a levelling-up issue. The south-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west have the largest shortage of provision of NHS dental services, with 98% of practices in these areas refusing to accept new adult NHS patients, according to the latest figures I have been able to find.
I have raised a number of points, and I understand that the Minister may need to write to me on some of those. We sometimes have this sense that there is health, and then there is dental health. Indeed, the article I cited earlier stressed that the WHO is concerned that dental health is often seen as something that is done by private clinics in private places—but, of course, dental health is crucial to the health and well-being of a healthy population. We have, in so many different areas, a public health crisis in the UK. Dental health is one more of those areas, and it must not be left behind or neglected because of historic structural factors.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for ensuring that we have an opportunity to debate this important statutory instrument today. We benefit from his detailed analysis of problems in the dental sector.
The facts are laid bare in the Government’s own impact assessment, which says:
“NHS dentistry was a challenging area prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with patient access proving difficult in some areas of the country … The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated problems with patient access and created a backlog of patients seeking access to NHS dentistry.”
There is a recognition in that analysis that people being unable to access NHS dentistry is a long-standing problem. As other noble Lords have said, the statutory instrument is correctly aimed at addressing some aspects of that shortfall, and we would not oppose it as a contribution to solving the problem. However, we would ask the Minister, “Is this all you’ve got?”, given the clear and enormous gap between demand and supply.
The figures are dire. Again, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that the success rate for patients seeking an NHS dental appointment has fallen from 97% in 2012 to 82% in 2022 for people with an existing relationship with a dentist—so one in five of those who already have an NHS dentist relationship are not being seen. But for those trying to get their first NHS dental appointment, this has become almost impossible in many areas, with only 31% of those who had not been seen before successfully getting an appointment, compared with 77% of the same group in 2012. When we drill down into these national  figures, we also see significant variation around the country, with some areas having become known as “dental deserts” because of the lack of dentists offering NHS treatments.
Turning again to the impact assessment, we see that it tells us that
“the North West has generally good access (but with pockets of poor access in rural areas), compared to the South West and East of England where access is generally poor, particularly in rural and coastal areas.”
This is a terrible indictment of what is supposed to be a nationally available essential service—one that is likely to have a disproportionate effect on deprived people who often need intensive dental care. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised this point, quite rightly, in the context of the levelling-up agenda—or is it the gauging-up agenda? In any case, the agenda to deliver better services to people in historically deprived areas is critical to this understanding of the disparate access to dental care.
These changes are supposed to incentivise better provision of these intensive treatments but I note that again there is no statutory review clause in the instrument requiring the Government to produce data that will show their actual impact. I hope the Minister will want to commit to producing such a post-implementation evaluation in due course, even if that is not a statutory requirement. I am sure he will talk up the benefit of making these changes but the proof will be when we come back in a year or two and we can see whether there has been a change in the number of people able to access NHS dentistry and the number of treatments that were given.
As well as amending the payment scheme, this regulation places new requirements on dental practices to update information about their services for publication on the NHS website. This may seem weird, but I experienced a twinge of fond nostalgia as I read up on this section. It took me back to my first technology job, where I was responsible for producing the directories of primary care practitioners for what was then the Avon Family Health Services Authority. These consisted of papers in ring binders that listed each dental practice and its services for distribution to libraries and other public information points.
That was in the mid-1990s before the massive growth of the public internet, but I managed to get hold of some software called the NCSA HTTPd, an early web server, and I produced an HTML version of our directory for people in the local authority. All of those products are now long discontinued, as indeed is the country of Avon itself, so this is of historical rather than current interest. However, that may have been version 0.001 of the public directory that we now have on the NHS website.
Fast-forwarding to the present day, it will be no surprise that we support improvements to provision of information to the public such as those in the statutory instrument. However, that has to be complemented by improvements to the availability of services or we will simply see increased frustration as people are given better information about what they cannot have. Does the Minister have a response to people who will go to the NHS website and find that there are no dentists taking on NHS patients in their area?
I hope that the Minister will not think it churlish if we say, “Thanks but not enough” in response to this instrument, and that he may have some additional remarks to make about what more the Government plan to do, especially in respect of creating the NHS dental workforce. I emphasise “NHS”; there are many areas where there is no shortage of dentists, but there is a shortage of dentists who are willing to work for the rates that the NHS is prepared to offer them. I hope that by making those improvements, we will be able to move on from where we are today, where seven out of 10 people in this country who try to get into the NHS dentistry system for the first time cannot find anyone to take them on.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Hunt for such a thorough analysis and for bringing this debate before your Lordships’ House this evening. As ever, he brings his expertise, knowledge and incisive approach to this important subject: the provision, or lack of provision, of dentistry.
As we have heard, we have seen a quarter of the budget cut since 2010 and with dentistry, a complete failure to provide a proper service to the population of this country. We know that dentists suffer burnout and that there is difficulty in retaining and recruiting the dentists that we need, while insufficient numbers are in training. This is a toxic mix. We also know that even under the existing budget, even if it was utilised fully, funding is available to provide NHS dental services for only around half the population. We find ourselves in considerable difficulty.
Let us remind ourselves about this statutory instrument. It was drawn to the special attention of the House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its report because the regulations are
“defectively drafted in two related respects.”
To look at the specifics of those, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, also raised, I ask the Minister why it was not felt necessary in respect of primary dental service agreement changes to give a timeframe for dental practice profiles to be provided for the NHS website. Does this not, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments criticised, insert a somewhat unacceptable level of uncertainty into the statute book? I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that point. Furthermore, in respect of the criticisms of this statutory instrument, can the Minister say why NHS England has received no steer within this as to what a “reasonable timeframe” is to take action against non-compliant contractors, which the JCSI concludes
“leaves this law unacceptably uncertain”?
To pick up a point of process which I have raised several times before, I can only say to the Minister that it is a great shame that we are once again taking part in a debate on a DHSC regret Motion. The SI scrutiny committees of both Houses have certainly had their work cut out with the department, having been presented repeatedly with regulations that have required comments of the type that I am sure the Minister would rather not be seeing.
In the last exchange we had in your Lordships’ House regarding a regret Motion laid in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, I asked the Minister to investigate what action could be taken within his department to stem the flow of regret Motions, but just this week we find that we have two, one night after another. Perhaps the Minister can say whether he has been able to take me up on that suggestion and what progress has been made.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum references the consultation that they did with the British Dental Association and others. It says that respondents agreed that changes were not positive. Could the Minister unpick what that means? Does it mean that there was a mixed response? Does it mean, if I may use a double negative, that there were no negative responses? In any case, perhaps the Minister can share the responses with your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said earlier, we are debating one element of a package that was announced by the Chief Dental Officer and which was designed to improve access. I hope that the Minister will address the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Hunt, because three parts of the announcement require further comment.
The first point is around the adherence to existing NICE guidance on the recall interval between check-ups. As my noble friend said, this is something that we might be used to but it is not evidence-based, and we should be reviewing recall intervals to establish whether there is a way of freeing up services. Secondly, we need to look at giving DCPs the ability to open up courses of NHS treatment. That is a significant change and should be acknowledged positively but, as my noble friend said, there are considerable obstacles to address. I hope that the Minister will do so today. The third point is the introduction of new bands. This will be welcomed by dentists but the impact on access, and who gets that access, is entirely unclear and unpredictable. It may result in more treatment being provided, but to whom will that treatment go and how accessible will it be? Perhaps the Minister can indicate what assessment has been made of what improvement, or otherwise, that will make to accessibility.
Lastly, I want to say a word on workforce. There is a lack of data about the dental workforce to inform any clear plan, which we continue to be promised. For example, the registers of the General Dental Council list only dental practitioners and not whether they are practising. There must be meaningful data available to provide a starting point for the workforce strategy that the NHS dental service so desperately needs. Can the Minister advise your Lordships’ House on how that proper data will be made available?
I am sure that the Minister will refer to the increase in funding that was committed some months ago to help NHS dentistry fund appointments over and above existing hours. The difficulty here is that, because of issues with the system—including practices struggling to meet contracted hours, the intervention coming at the end of the NHS financial year, and omicron—only 28% of that funding has been deployed, according to the British Dental Association. Can the Minister comment on that and on how the funding may be properly deployed to make a difference?
I hope that the Minister can address all these points, because I am afraid that NHS dentistry in this country is going in the wrong direction. We need to see it provided so that people can be assured of their health in all ways.

Lord Markham: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: as I have mentioned before, my wife is a dentist, and so interested in this. She has been able to join us here, as part of a celebration for my father’s 80th birthday. Who knows why they would want to come and listen to me on such a night?
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for securing the debate on this important matter and thank noble Lords for their contributions. We all agree that dentistry is a vitally important area. On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree that health and oral health are indivisible. This is a key part of levelling up. I agree with the premise that these SIs are a start, not a finish—a point made by the noble Lord Allan.
I will try to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about the defects of the SI. I am not defending some of the other things but I would like to think that this regret Motion and the one that we had the other day are more about having a debate because we think that we can do better, rather than disagreeing with the SIs themselves. If that is the case, I agree that they are the start and not the finish; there is definitely more that we want and need to do in this space. These regulations are a sensible first move. Some changes have been mentioned already tonight but the UDA changes—to put the minimum value in place and ensure that it more fairly reflects the complexities of some of the treatments—are steps that we worked with the BDA on. I think we would all agree that they are sensible steps.
I have also heard various variants on some dentists, for want of a better word, gaming NHS contracts. I have definitely seen some of that behaviour. I will need to take away some details on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about pension qualifications, but we generally recognise that that is going on. At the same time, the provisions within the SI to give more support, 110% or even more, to those who are properly contributing to the system are welcome. I hope that that would be generally agreed.
I hope that we would all agree that the other measures, such as using teams to get a better skill mix and DCPs to do more of that work, are sensible. I agree that we need to reduce those obstacles. I did not realise that we had the Tim Berners-Lee of the dentist directory among us today, but I hope that we would all agree that moves on dentistry website information are sensible, modest though they are. I know that water fluoridation is a great favourite of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We are making moves on it. On the changes we were discussing the other day on GDC international recruitment, the mutual recognition of qualifications is a good first step and should definitely be a way forward in easing access. There clearly has to be a better way forward on intelligent use of recalls, rather than those people who are already lucky enough to be with an NHS dentist automatically getting a six-monthly reminder. We all know that, in many cases, those appointments could be better used elsewhere.
As mentioned, we all agree that these measures are just the start and definitely not the finish. The steps we need to introduce have to centre around supply and workforce. On when the workforce strategy will be published, fairly advanced drafts are being circulated, as I mentioned the other day. A lot of work has been and is being done in that space. While I cannot give a precise date, I think it will be in the not-too-distant future—let me put it that way. We recognise that more needs to be done on it. As the House has heard me say before, a lot of that is around the flexibility between qualifications and having much more of a modular, escalator-type approach. For instance, it surely makes sense for a dentist to be qualified as a nurse along the way, two years in, and then to be able to start work in the dentistry profession and hone their skills, rather than supplementing their income down at Wetherspoon’s as they finish the rest of the course. I think we all agree that those have to be sensible measures, and I know this is very much the direction of travel being worked on.
The critical element is dental deserts. We all know this is the nut that we have to crack. When I have conversations with colleagues normally, having a bit of knowledge can sometimes be a dangerous thing. In this instance, I try to describe it. I ask them to think about a situation where we want a dentist who has probably been there for about 10 years and is in their mid-30s. We might say, “We would now like you to set up your own practice.” The dentist says, “Great, I’d like that. I’m up for that.” We say, “And in an NHS dental desert, because that’s where we need it.” The dentist says, “That’s good, I really want that. What do I have to do?” We say, “Well, raise 400 grand to set up a practice; set up payroll so you can employ six to eight people; start marketing yourselves; fit it all out, get the chairs, and off you go.” They say, “Hang on a moment, I’m a dentist. I’m good at being a dentist. I’ve done it for 10 years, and I think that qualifies me. I’m not in a position to go out there and set up a dental practice like that.” So, I think there is recognition that, if we are really going to move the dial in that area, we have to give them far more help and support: the know-how, some of the funding, the whole package. Clearly, if you are going to get that support, you need to be committed to doing it in that area, but that is the kind of direction of travel that I know colleagues are working on. So while I portray a personal view in terms of my feelings towards it, I know that is very much recognised by colleagues in the House.
I hope that this will be seen as the first step along the way. As ever, I will endeavour to write in detail to everyone to make sure that I have reported on all the other points raised tonight. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this matter to us for discussion. I hope that he would feel that, rather than a regret Motion, this is more a good opportunity to discuss measures which we would all agree are sensible first steps, with more needed to come. Before too long, I hope to be standing here able to talk in much more detail about those further steps.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. As the Minister mentioned fluoridation,  I should just remind the House that I am president of the British Fluoridation Society and patron of the National Water Fluoridation Alliance. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she talked about the WHO and preventative measures. The single most important measure would be to introduce fluoridation where it is not present at the moment. I was delighted when the Government took powers back to themselves to do this. I know that progress is being made: I just urge the Government to speed it up.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that she is right to identify the levelling-up Bill. It is a long Bill, but there is room for more amendments in relation to health. There are some already, but I would encourage her to think about that. She and the noble Lord, Lord Allan, raised the issue of the south-west. I had a meeting today with Stonewater, a very large social housing provider, which is very concerned about the lack of housing in the south-west. I would definitely make the link between housing and health, which is a very important issue if we are serious about levelling up.
The noble Lord was right to identify that these problems started before the pandemic, and that we are now facing particular issues, but the underlying structural issues are still not being dealt with. I also agree with him about post-implementation evaluation. I hope that the Minister, when he responds in writing, might be able to say something about that.
My noble friend Lady Merron was absolutely right to hone in on retention and recruitment. Although there are various initiatives, at the moment I do not think enough is being done to retain the profession within NHS dentistry. We need to do very much more about that. Her point about practice information going on the NHS website is really important, and I hope that the Government will respond to it.
Ultimately, it comes back to prioritisation and money, and I was grateful for what the Minister said. I am delighted that his wife is present to hear our debate, and indeed that he is celebrating his father’s 80th birthday. It reminded me that I took my wife with me—for a romantic 40th birthday celebration—to address the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee dinner. She has never forgotten that or forgiven me for that great sin, nor has she forgiven Alan Milburn for making me do it.
Anyway, the point is that we come back to the workforce strategy, because without a properly funded workforce strategy, with numbers, we will not get anywhere. In the meantime, there is still a lot that can be done to streamline GDC processes, recruit dentists from overseas and, crucially, give dentists currently in the profession but not doing NHS work some confidence that it will be worth their while to do NHS dentistry.
I was very interested in the point the Minister made about the cost for dentists coming into NHS dentistry and starting a new practice. He will, of course, have been interested in what Wes Streeting had to say about the future of primary care. He came in for some criticism for suggesting that maybe the current model of GP partnerships might not always be the right one. He is absolutely right that we have to think rather radically about how we will develop primary care in the future.
The argument for a proper strategy for dental access for NHS patients is very persuasive indeed. Having said that, I thank noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
 - Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 5

Baroness O’Loan: Moved by Baroness O’Loan
5: Clause 2, page 3, line 18, at end insert “unless an investigation is one to which subsections (2) and (3) of section 17 apply”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment removes the duty to produce a report on the finding of any investigation until the matter under investigation has been dealt with by the Prosecutor.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, these amendments relate to the reporting functions of the commission that will be established by the Bill. Noble Lords will know that the process of reporting and producing a report for public consumption is enormously important because it complies with the requirements to be open and transparent about the work that has been done.
At the same time, those who report must rightly engage in a complex but necessary fairness process—a process in which one has to consider all one’s obligations to all the various actors mentioned in the report. I did so most recently in June 2021, when I reported on my work for the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service’s handling of the case of Daniel Morgan. The fairness process at the end of that report lasted months and months, because it was so important to ensure that letters went to everyone who might be mentioned and even very faintly criticised in the report, to receive their responses and then to produce a report that reflected precisely what we wanted to say. I am very much aware, as I am sure noble Lords are, of the difficulties attached to this reporting process.
These amendments apply to the reporting process following review or investigation because of the other amendments I have tabled. Amendment 5 in my name removes the requirement to produce a final report on an investigation if that investigation has been subject to a referral to the prosecutor under Clause 23 and the prosecutor has yet to make a prosecutorial decision or a prosecution has not occurred. This is an amendment to Clause 2, so it is the first time the Bill is introducing the functions of the commission, and one of those functions is to report. The amendment says simply that you do not have to do so if there has been a referral to the prosecutor and it is not resolved. I want to put that in the Bill to prevent any expectation that there is an obligation to report in these circumstances. I think that expectation would exist but for this amendment.
Similarly, Amendment 89 to Clause 15 would mean that the Chief Commissioner is under no obligation to produce a final report or to provide the specified information where a matter has been reported to the prosecutor. Obviously, where an investigation has occurred it is not possible to provide the information referred to in Clause 15 until all prosecutorial possibilities have been exhausted. This is to protect the integrity of any investigation that has occurred.
Amendment 98 refers to the requirement in the Bill to provide a copy of a whole report to somebody who is criticised in it. I may have misread or misunderstood the impact of this clause, but I think the Bill requires the commission to send the report to anybody who has been criticised in it. I am suggesting an amendment that would introduce a process similar to that of the Salmon or Maxwellisation principles and would require only information that relates to the criticism of the individual in question to be shared with that individual, not the whole report. Were the whole report to be provided, it would give the individual who has been criticised access to information about other criticisms and other information that it may not be appropriate to include before the final editing of the report. For example, the commissioner might find that his criticisms were not justified when he gets a response from those to whom the material has been provided. Clause 15(11) may be attempting to deal with this problem, but it is not clear what is meant by that subsection. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to the extent of that subsection and how it applies. I hope that the amendment as suggested would limit the obligation on the commissioner while still satisfying the requirements of fairness for those who are criticised and still enabling him or her ultimately to produce the necessary report.
Clause 15 provides that if there is a criticism of the criticism, the commissioner will exclude the material. In Amendment 100 I suggest that it is very helpful, when one is producing the material, if one can modify the material that one has sent out, rather than exclude it in its entirety. There may well be issues that still need to be raised for the purposes of completeness and accountability in reporting. I think it would give the commissioner much more flexibility and allow the production of a fair but more complete report.
Clause 24(4) provides that the commission may not request information from a victim or survivor of the Troubles or their family member. Clause 24(5) modifies that slightly by providing that information can be sought if they hold a public office or something like that. To enhance the confidence of victims in the proposed process, my Amendment 141 provides a right for such a person to provide information. I think that is important in caring for victims.
Amendment 142 is a probing amendment, simply to consider the circumstances in which confidential information should be available to the ICRIR for the purposes of historical reports. For example, I have seen multiple situations in which information held by organisations such as the PSNI, the RUC or the Metropolitan Police has been marked confidential despite the fact that, even by government marking standards, it does not warrant such classification. When you are confronted with information marked confidential, you  can challenge the classification and get it downgraded so that it does not attract the protections that confidential information attracts, but I think it is important for the Minister to consider whether it is possible to arrange for situations in which information that may have been marked confidential might be made available for historical purposes.
Similarly, if a person has been, for example, a counsellor for a rape or murder victim’s family in a case covered by the Bill, they would have an obligation of confidentiality to that person. However, it may be that the person to whom the obligation is owed would be content to release the counsellor from the obligation. It is also the case that confidential marking in post by an organ of a state other than, for example, the police could be amended to reflect the marking which should have occurred originally. Really, the purpose of these amendments is to enable the placing of as much information as possible in the public domain and on the historical record. I think that is what is intended by the Minister.
Finally, I move to Amendment 136, which requires the provision of adequate resources for the commission. The cases arising in 1966 to 1998, as defined in the Bill, occurred very significantly during the period when Northern Ireland was subject to direct rule. We did not have our own Assembly and the UK Government were running the show: things happened on their watch. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that the resources are provided and not require those resources to be provided by the current Government of Northern Ireland out of their current budget. These events were all under the watch of the Government and it would be appropriate for the ICRIR to be appropriately resourced to enable it to conduct the work it must conduct. I beg to move.

Lord Bew: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 99 and 101 in this group, which are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Godson. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the amendments are designed to focus on the possible functioning of the commission, the ICRIR. I think I will say “the commission” and follow the Minister’s advice on that: I do not want to struggle late at night with that mouthful of letters.
I say first to the Minister that it has been a hard day’s work. He has all my sympathy and is entitled to feel, given the amount of work and effort he has put into this Bill, that he has also somebody who supports the Bill, albeit somebody who is coming up and raising difficulties, although I hope of a containable sort. That might be a little bit more than flesh can bear at this stage in the proceedings.
I want to address an issue that has been at the centre of discussion during the week in Belfast: the article by Neil Faris in the Belfast News Letter—three articles in fact—about the possible functioning or the future functioning of the commission. It is perfectly possible that some of the concerns that exist and are expressed in those articles may be overstating and the Minister can allay them. But essentially my two  amendments are both directed in that respect. They seek to balance the rights of those who may be named in reports with the rights of those requesting reviews, and particularly (6A)(a), (b) and (c) in my amendment are designed to achieve that end.
In the case of Amendment 101, it is a linguistic change, again with the same objective of balancing the rights of those who are at the other side of this process with those actually carrying out any review. One key point I want to make is quite simply that we have talked a lot already about what is or is not Article 2 compliant. But the UK Government also have a responsibility with respect to Article 8, respect for private and family life, and Article 10, freedom of expression, and both these rights also must be respected.
The particulars in new subsections (6A) and (6B) draw on best practice in the world of civil litigation, particularly inquiries by public bodies into alleged misconduct falling short of criminality. I would be happier if I felt that the Government were considering this best practice and how it has evolved, particularly since 2016, to ensure fairness when the commission indeed gets up and running. There are concerns at the moment about how the commission might actually work in practice. Those are concerns that the Minister and the Government have the capacity to meet, and that is really the point that lies behind my amendments, which are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: Amendments 99 and 101.

Lord Hain: My Lords, in speaking—briefly, the Committee may be pleased to hear—to Amendment 136, I again thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for adding their considerable names. I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her forensic analysis and for bringing her long experience into the debate through her amendments.
We all understand that, due to the age and complexity of legacy cases, prosecutions will be rare—very rare—but it is important that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is sufficiently resourced, with appropriately skilled and experienced lawyers, to promptly review cases referred to it by the commissioner of investigations of the ICRIR, and that is not happening at the moment in respect of the Kenova model. Families have been waiting many years to understand what happened to their loved ones. Delays in prosecution decisions must not be allowed to prolong the wait still further.
Currently, legacy cases are glacially slow, to be decided upon by the PPS Northern Ireland, and, when a decision to prosecute does result, those cases can be expected to take five or more years to come to a conclusion. These cases involve recurring legacy issues and present specific legal challenges, such as the admissibility of evidence, hearsay and the continuity of exhibits. They need to be dealt with by lawyers with experience and expertise in these matters. As an example, Operation Kenova now has 33 files with the PPS Northern Ireland for consideration. The first tranche of files was submitted in October 2019, over two years ago. For most of these cases, families have been waiting for more than 25 years, and in some cases almost 50 years.
The PPS Northern Ireland prioritisation criteria mean that legacy files are effectively put in a queue for examination, as resourcing and demand allow. Understandably, perhaps, given the resources available, priority is given to cases relating to current offences, so the review of legacy cases slips further and further backwards, to the frustration and unnecessary additional traumatisation of the families concerned. The Bill claims to be victim-focused, but it is time that legacy legislation actually demonstrated such an intention because, as currently drafted, it does not do so.
The way that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland reviews cases differs considerably from the way that terrorism cases are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales. The CPS has a specialist counterterrorism division that engages with the investigation team as soon as a file is submitted. Early joint case conferences with senior counsel and the investigation team are held to assist in understanding the evidential strengths and weaknesses of the file, enabling further evidential recovery and facilitating prompt decision-making. This collaborative approach allows a more informed understanding of the cases and speedy and effective decision-making. The PPS Northern Ireland simply does not have the resources to dedicate lawyers to legacy files in this way.
As part of this Bill, it is important that sufficient funding is allocated to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to review files and make timely and good decisions on them. It is essential that the creation of the ICRIR is supported by robust operating practices within the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that must be adequately resourced to deal promptly with legacy files referred by the ICRIR Commissioner of Investigations.
In conclusion, the Minister cited resources as one of the reasons why he questioned the validity of the Kenova model being inserted into this Bill, as I am proposing to do on Report. The alternative to adequately resourcing this—and Jon Boutcher has already disputed that it will involve massive resources, at least compared to what has been devoted to these legacy cases in the past—is leaving victims betrayed. What is the point of this legislation unless it is to give some relief, closure and sense of justice, as well as, crucially, truth recovery, which is the predominant objective victims are seeking? If this Bill does not deliver that, and if the model adopted does not have the resources to deliver that, then it will fail in its objective, and we might as well say so. If the Government are going for a resource-thinned, slimmed-down operation, as I am afraid this Bill seems to propose—and the Minister’s response to the previous debate seemed to indicate that resources are one of his top concerns about the Kenova model—then they will leave victims completely dissatisfied. I do not think that is where your Lordships’ House wants to be, and I do not think that is where legislation seeking to bring to a head this whole legacy trauma should be either.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I speak for the first time on this legislation. During Second Reading, I was in the south Atlantic on the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Falklands. Having  expected to be fully part of the legislation, I have not been so far. I speak with a fair degree of trepidation because there are clearly so many experts and former Secretaries of State. When I speak on my normal portfolio, I feel as if I am probably just about pitching things right, and I hope this evening I manage to get the tone right.
First, I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in pointing out that we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. So many of the amendments on this Bill have been framed by the noble Baroness, who has reviewed the Bill forensically as far as anybody can tell. She has certainly caused these Benches to look at and think about some of the issues that have been raised.
In reporting, there is always a balance between needing to have appropriate reporting and putting too many requirements on to Ministers, officials and others. It is a tendency for opposition parliamentarians when amending legislation to say, “We’d like the Government to report on something.” Amendment 5 makes a lot of sense; we should not have excessive reporting expectations.
I have a few questions about the extent of the pressure we are putting on officials. Would we be able to deliver some of the amendments being proposed? Also, one of the issues that has come up across this group seems to be about resources. One of the issues for your Lordships’ House is that, if something is deemed to be a finance Bill—if we say there needs to be resources—at some point the other place might say “That is not your remit.”
One of the things I want to ask the Minister is the extent to which he envisages it being possible for the Government to look at the appropriate resource to enable the aims and ambitions of the Bill to be fulfilled. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, there is not a great deal of point in pushing through legislation, which in itself is disputed and contested by so many, if, in the end, victims feel that their cases are not being looked at adequately. Can the Minister either tell the House or undertake to go away and consider whether it is realistic to be thinking about resources to ensure that His Majesty’s Government will provide additional funding to investigate legacy cases, so that those do not fall on the budget of the current Government of Northern Ireland? That seems to be something which we ought to look into.
I have a couple of other questions relating to Amendment 98, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. There was talk about a Maxwellisation process; is that realistic? Does the Minister think that offering somebody the opportunity to comment on some aspects of a report about themselves, and not the whole report, is a viable approach? Or when the report comes out, is somebody likely to say, “That doesn’t reflect what I said”? I have some concerns about that.
Similarly with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, the first part of Amendment 99 appears very sensible and to be fairly well delimited. But on the second part, proposed new subsection (6B), one concern is whether it would be proportionate if we are suggesting that
“the Chief Commissioner has used his or her best endeavours to locate a close family member”
and so on. If the Minister were minded to accept this amendment or something like it, would it be possible or desirable to define a little better what could be meant by “best endeavours”? Again, we could be looking at putting a lot of resource into some activity that might be really difficult. All these amendments have some merit, but with Amendment 99 there are some questions about its proportionality.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: I think the amendments are very sensible, they come from sensible people and the Minister should take them very seriously. They improve a Bill which we do not like, as we are again in this dilemma. Nevertheless, the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, really are worth investigating and we would support them.
My noble friend Lord Hain again has made an extremely sensible suggestion that we need to look at the resourcing. In the case of his amendment, that is with regard to prosecution, but the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has made the very valid point that the whole apparatus that is to be set up by the Bill needs to be resourced. We are not in good financial times, so I am assuming that the Government have costed what all this will take and that it will be put into a Budget. We will have the Budget in a week or two’s time, so it is probably too early yet for the establishment of these institutions. Nevertheless, these are hugely important issues, not the least of which is linked to time. People should not have to wait a long time to have their case heard because there are no resources for it. We look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Lord Caine: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and will, as ever, seek to deliver a sensible reply. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to this having already been a hard day’s work. I trust that it will not turn into a hard day’s night—but enough song references for this evening.
I turn to the amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Clause 15 places a duty on the chief commissioner to produce a final report on the findings of each review that the commission has carried out, as soon as is practicable once the review has concluded. This, as noble Lords will recognise, is designed to support information recovery.
However, where the commissioner for investigations has referred a case to prosecutors for possible prosecution, Clause 17(2) and (3) already require the chief commissioner to postpone publication of the final report pending a decision by the prosecutor, or the outcome of any criminal proceedings which might flow from that decision. In the Government’s view, therefore, Amendments 5 and 89 are not needed as the Bill already achieves their purpose.
I note the noble Baroness’s comments on sharing reports, which I take seriously. The commissioner will of course be subject to the safeguards set out in Clause 4, but I am happy to sit down with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, whom I welcome to our debates, to discuss the matter further. Where the legislation makes reference to “material” criticising an individual under Clause 15, it means
“material which, in the Chief Commissioner’s view, constitutes significant criticism of a living individual who was involved in the conduct forming part of the Troubles, or other harmful conduct … to which a review relates”.
I am advised that language in that space is aligned with the Inquiries Act, but, as I have said, I am very happy, between now and the next stage, to sit down with the two noble Baronesses to discuss those matters further.
My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, rightly considered the importance of ensuring that the commission should follow best practice in carrying out reviews within the exercise of its power. The commission is already under a clearly defined obligation in Clause 4, to which I have just referred, not to do anything that
“would risk putting, or would put, the life or safety of any person at risk”.
It is the Government’s view that this safeguard is wide enough to offer sufficient protection to the rights of anyone likely to be named in reports. Therefore, in our view, the amendment is unnecessary. Additionally, we would expect the commission, as a public body, to maintain high standards and follow best practice when discharging all its functions, including those which relate to naming individuals in reports—but, as ever, I am very happy to discuss that further.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, the former Secretary of State, referred to prosecutions and acknowledged, as he has done throughout, that the prospect of prosecutions is very rare. It is worth remembering, when looking at this legislation, that the most recent case that will be examined by the commission is now over a quarter of a century old, and the oldest case is just slightly older than me. I will be 57 in April, for those who are unaware.

Lord Hain: He is a young man.

Lord Cormack: He is a very young man.

Lord Caine: I am a child in your Lordships’ House.
We are looking at cases which go back very many years and where, as the noble Lord rightly says, the chance of prosecutions is rare. In response to his amendment requiring the Secretary of State to make payments where conduct has been referred, I do not think he will be remotely surprised to hear me repeat what I have said in the Chamber on a number of previous occasions in response to him and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the latter of whom is not in her place, unfortunately: that funding for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, and one for the Executive to consider.
I will say, almost in parenthesis, that I understand the comments about resource, but I have spoken to senior members of the legal profession in Belfast. While they would of course always welcome more resources, they are also adamant that the speed with which some of the cases proceed is not entirely down to resourcing; there are other issues involved. Having said that, I remind the Committee that the 2021 spending review set out historical levels of funding for the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland  Executive. Spending per head in Northern Ireland is already the highest of any region of the UK: Northern Ireland receives 21% more funding per head than the UK average. Also, a sizeable amount of money— £250 million, to be exact—will be made available by the Government to fund the institutions established by the Bill, including the investigative function of the commission.
I turn now to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her amendments—

Lord Hain: I apologise; I do not want to detain the Committee, but what proportion of that extra spending or allocation that the Minister said Northern Ireland gets compared with other parts of the UK is down to the unique security needs of Northern Ireland that are not present elsewhere in the UK?

Lord Caine: A lot of it is determined by the Barnett formula, but, in large part, it is not just security but the additional needs that Northern Ireland has. I have no issue with the additional spending: it is right that, as part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland benefits from the same levels of service as every other part, and that should continue. But the additional spending is not just down to security, by any means.

Baroness O'Loan: Is the Minister sure that Northern Ireland benefits from the same level of services as the rest of the United Kingdom? Our waiting lists are very much longer than any in the health service here—far more people are waiting for appointments there than here—and we have major difficulties in our education system because of funding matters. So the service is not the same.

Lord Caine: I completely appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness. To some extent, the problems there are exacerbated by the lack of a devolved Administration between 2017 and 2020: we are still living with the consequences of there being no decision-making during that period, when Sinn Féin pulled down the institutions. Of course, we are also suffering from the lack of a functioning Executive at the moment. I suspect that we might return to some of these issues when we debate the Northern Ireland Budget Bill in your Lordships’ House in two or three weeks’ time. However, I accept that the situation, particularly regarding health and waiting lists, is considerably worse in Northern Ireland, but we stand by the principle that Northern Ireland, and all parts of the United Kingdom, should benefit from the same levels of service.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s amendments on the historical record. If families do not request an investigation into the death or serious injury of their loved one, or their cases are not referred to the commission by the Secretary of State in circumstances where he has deemed it appropriate to meet international obligations, the researchers responsible for compiling the record will use only publicly available information and will not contact families. This is of the utmost importance because we know that, for perfectly understandable  reasons, a number of families in Northern Ireland would rather not resurrect the past, and we entirely respect that. Nothing in the current drafting prevents individuals voluntarily providing information to the commission, but, again, I am happy to continue to talk to noble Lords on this matter. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these issues. Amendment 136, on the need for funding for prosecutions, covers a very complex and sensitive issue. The reality is that a case takes an average of three years—probably longer now in Northern Ireland—to come to prosecution once it is presented to the prosecutors. With the various stages of the trial process, it lasts a number of years. If the commission has a lifespan of five years for the receipt of information, with a consequential period for investigation, which may well exceed a year for each one, there will be difficult problems in trying to process cases. Quite simply, we are trying to do too much in a limited amount of time with limited resources. That is why I am afraid I have to challenge the Minister again on his assertion that the money must come from the current Northern Ireland budget—it quite simply is not there. I hope that the Minister will recognise the need to resource both investigations and prosecution.
If we set up a commission to deal with the past and it is capable of doing what Jon Boutcher has done in Kenova, which I am serving on, and the cases go into a black hole called the prosecution service and nothing comes out the other end, conclusions will be drawn about what Parliament’s intentions were in setting up this legacy process—and they will not be positive conclusions. I just reiterate that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, made very valuable and thoughtful contributions. In relation to the question of whether it is possible to give a criticised individual a partial report, rather than a whole one, report writers have to take into account the privacy rights of the individuals who appear in the report, whether they are named or might be recognised by the role that they hold. There is that need to try to balance the need to ensure accountability and transparency with the proper protection of the privacy rights of others. My amendments seek to make the process of preparing those reports more compliant with all the requirements of fairness.
The other issue that is relevant is that it is normal practice in this type of work to supply to the criticised individual only that part of the report that refers to them. I reference, for example, the provisions of the Inquiries Act—it is late at night, but I think it was 2005—which provides in Section 13, I think, for letters to be sent to people providing the criticisms that are made against them but not providing the whole report. So this is standard practice, and I think that it would work in these circumstances. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to further discussions on these issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendment 6

Lord Caine: Moved by Lord Caine
6: Clause 2, page 3, line 26, at end insert—“(4A) At least three months before the start of each financial year the ICRIR must—(a) produce and publish a work plan for that year, and(b) give a copy of the plan to the Secretary of State.But this duty does not apply in relation to any financial year which starts before 1 April 2024.(4B) A work plan must deal with the following matters—(a) the caseload which the ICRIR is expecting;(b) the plans which the ICRIR has for dealing with its caseload;(c) the plans which the ICRIR has for engaging with persons entitled to request reviews of deaths and other harmful conduct;(d) policies which the ICRIR is planning to introduce, review or change;(e) such other matters as the ICRIR considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statementThis would require the ICRIR to produce a work plan for each financial year before the start of the year.

Lord Caine: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name. Most of the amendments in this group are technical in nature, and as such I shall try at this late hour not to dwell on them too long.
Amendments 6 and 189 are designed to ensure that the commission produces and publishes a work plan for each financial year. Amendment 7, 10 and 11 make changes to the existing provisions on annual reporting, bringing them in line with the process for producing a work plan. This will ensure that the commission has properly considered, and planned for, its expected caseload in each financial year. This is similar in rationale to comparative provisions in other legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which requires the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to publish strategic plans and annual reports.
I have also tabled a series of technical amendments that are clarificatory in nature. Amendment 17 deletes a reference to a commissioner having been removed from office on grounds of ill health, as ill health is not a ground for removal from office. Amendment 18 ensures that the definition of “insolvent” which applies for the purposes of the provision on the removal of commissioners also applies for the purposes of the provision on the appointment of commissioners. Amendments 19 and 31 update the provisions about the application to the commissioners and commission officers of the law relating to the rehabilitation of offenders. They ensure that the Bill reflects the current approach taken in law.
Amendment 32 ensures that the commissioner for investigations, who is also a commission officer, falls only within paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 as a commissioner and not also within paragraph 20 as an ICRIR officer. Paragraphs 14 and 20 make equivalent provision to ensure that the prohibitions on trade union activity that govern the police do not apply to the commission.
Amendment 42 avoids overlap with provisions of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which will apply to designated commission officers  operating in England and Wales. Amendment 194 changes the definition of “reserved provision” with regard to this legislation, reflecting the fact that Section 8(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires consent to a Bill rather than to the Act itself. The commissioner for investigations will have the powers and privileges of a constable and be able to designate other commission officers with police powers as required.
Amendments 179 and 181 will enable the commission to enter into bespoke agreements with relevant oversight bodies—namely, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Independent Office for Police Conduct in England and Wales, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in Scotland—regarding arrangements for external oversight of the commission’s use of police powers. This will ensure that powers are used proportionately.
The Bill as drafted includes consequential amendments giving the commission the power to request communications data directly from UK companies. Schedule 12 currently gives the commissioner for investigations the power to grant authorisations to obtain communications data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, following further consideration, it is the Government’s view that providing the commission with such powers would be disproportionate, particularly given the complex statutory regime associated with such powers and the scope of the commission in relation to the review of historic cases, the most recent of which, as I said in my response to the last group, are more than a quarter of a century old.
It is important to note that telecommunications operators are required to comply with the Data Protection Act, meaning that they would need a business justification for retaining communications data from 1998 and before. Therefore, the likelihood of providers holding relevant data for the purposes of the commission’s functions is very remote indeed. Removal of this clause will have no impact on the commission’s ability to obtain communications data previously obtained and still held by the relevant authorities using investigatory powers as part of previous investigations. Nor does it affect powers which flow purely from commission officers having the powers and privileges of constables. On reflection, the Government do not consider it necessary or proportionate to give the commission access to this power, given the nature of legacy investigations. I have therefore tabled Amendments 180, 182 and 183 to address the Investigatory Powers Act. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and I discussed this issue last week and I acknowledge that she has some concerns, which, again, I am very happy to discuss with her further. I beg to move.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, my remarks will focus on Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Empey, who has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence tonight. His wife is currently still in hospital after several days. I have no doubt that noble Lords will wish to join me in wishing Lady Empey—our friend Stella—a full and swift recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is not in his place tonight, mentioned that we were near the end of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, before the RUC was mentioned. Like the noble Lord,  Lord Caine, I thank him for his kind remarks about that force, which suffered so much during the Troubles. My noble friend Lord Empey’s amendment seeks to insert a legal guarantee that former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross, the Historical Enquiries Team or the Police Service of Northern Ireland will not be precluded from employment by the ICRIR. Of course, there is no reason that they should be; however, recent history tells us that some will, none the less, seek to find a reason.
Noble Lords will be aware of Operation Kenova, mentioned many times tonight, set up in 2016 to investigate a series of terrible crimes, including kidnapping, torture and murder, involving an individual codenamed Stakeknife. The Operation Kenova team is led by Jon Boutcher, who, at the time of his appointment, was Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police. He retired as chief constable in 2019, coinciding with a decision to expand Operation Kenova’s remit to four separate investigations, and he continues to lead that team. For the record, last year he found time to launch an unsuccessful bid to become Commissioner of the Met. One of Mr Boutcher’s first decisions when appointed to lead Operation Kenova was to prohibit former RUC GC and PSNI officers from involvement in the investigations. This ban has remained in place as his remit has widened. There is no logic to this, and neither is there any merit in blocking their route to employment by the ICRIR.
There are various interpretations of what this legislation is or is not intended to do. However, conducting thorough investigations into the multitude of unsolved murders and other horrific incidents throughout the long years of the Troubles should clearly be at the top of the list.
Clause 3(3)(a) provides that the ICRIR officers should
“have experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland”.
So, if proper investigations are to be carried out by individuals with first-hand experience of this work in Northern Ireland, surely former RUC GC and PSNI officers, as well as serving PSNI officers on secondment, should be at the head of queue to be engaged with the ICRIR.
I have always been a strong advocate of law and order. Throughout Northern Ireland’s darkest days, it fell to the brave men and women of the RUC, alongside the Armed Forces, to maintain law and order. Some 312 RUC officers lost their lives at the hands of terrorists, with 302 of those tragic deaths occurring in the Troubles. Over 10,000 more officers were injured in attacks, with over 300 left with life-changing injuries. While I remain a strong supporter of the Belfast agreement, the loss of the RUC GC’s name and cap badge were bitter pills to swallow. However, I cannot, and will not, allow the remarkable achievements and bravery of that force to be airbrushed from history, as many would like, especially IRA Sinn Féin, which is carrying out an intense and continuing campaign to rewrite the history of the Troubles and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has alluded to—to show IRA Sinn Féin in a better light than its former bestial acts would merit. That includes barring former RUC officers  from serving once again. Similarly, serving, and former officers of the successor force, the PSNI, must be afforded the same access to skilled employment that the ICRIR will offer.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that the intention behind my noble friend Lord Empey’s amendment will be respected and adhered to by His Majesty’s Government when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, first I say that, on the whole, I support most of the government amendments; they are sensible, and I am sure noble Lords will find them reasonable. As one of the sponsors of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has said. It is shocking that we need an amendment to make clear the position of those people who served our country so well for so many years in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Historical Enquiries Team or the Police Service of Northern Ireland—it is shocking that it should even be contemplated that they might not be considered to be a commissioner.
The reason we have to put it into the Bill is because there are very large numbers of people, particularly from the nationalist side, who spend their lives denigrating what was done by the RUC. Of course, there were bad apples, but I do not think there were probably as many bad apples as we have seen in the Metropolitan police force over the last few years. I urge the Minister to include this in the Bill so that people in Northern Ireland will know that this House and this Government—the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—realise and celebrate the steadfast and dedicated work put in by so many people in the RUC, so many of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned, paid with their lives and with their injuries. Can I suggest that the Minister comes back and says very clearly and simply “Yes, we will put it into the Bill”?

Lord Morrow: My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 33, and I commend the signatories to it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to convey our concerns and best wishes to Lady Empey. We wish her a speedy recovery.
I have a few brief remarks on the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the UDR and the Army. It is often forgotten that the RUC in particular stood between sanity and insanity, and more than 300 RUC members were murdered. It strikes me very often that their lives and the sacrifice they made are seen to be much less important than others, but I want to state in your Lordships’ House today that we appreciate and respect all that they did. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, some people have used their lives to vilify what the RUC sought to do.
It was mentioned in an earlier debate that 60% of the murders committed in Northern Ireland were committed by republicans, 30% were committed by loyalists, and 10% were allegedly committed by the security forces. Of course, that is not correct; if you drill down into that 10%, you arrive at a figure of something like 2%. It seems to me that instances where  the security forces were engaged are included in that 10%. On many occasions, they intercepted terrorists going about their business of murder and mayhem, but those instances are included in that 10%, so it is not accurate. I want to put that on the record here tonight. I have sought to do so on other occasions—

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: I thank my noble friend Lord Morrow for giving way. Would he agree with me that if we fail to put this on the face of the Bill and run the risk that former operatives of the RUC, the PSNI and the HET are barred from the ICRIR, we would be sending out a signal that, institutionally, we regard those organisations as being party to the conflict and that we would, in effect, be placing them on a parallel level and a par with the paramilitary organisations, given that the purpose of this is to investigate all crimes across the Troubles? That would send out a signal. If there is concern—which I think all of us share—about some who try to rewrite the past and justify what happened, this would send out completely the wrong signal. I suspect also that if there was a legal challenge in terms of a fair employment case, the provision would not survive that.

Lord Morrow: I thank my noble friend Lord Weir for making that very important and valid point. It would be absolutely disgraceful if, in any way, that happened. Former members of the RUC, and indeed some members of the PSNI, have also been on the receiving end of republican terrorism. I was delighted to hear earlier in the debate that someone, at long last—I must have missed this—has been apprehended for the murder of that young journalist in Londonderry, Lyra McKee. It is a known fact, or it is believed—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, also made this point—that the bullet which took her life on that dreadful evening was meant for a police officer.
I sometimes think that noble Lords and others in this part of the United Kingdom do not fully comprehend and grasp what the security forces had to put up with over all those years. I say with some regret that there are a few of us, particularly on the unionist side of the community, who had very close friends—I have had them, in my family—who were blown up, but because they were members of the RUC, there was no other crime. That was the only crime. Thankfully, that particular friend survived, albeit with very serious injuries.
I ask your Lordships’ Committee not to shy away from talking about the RUC, which perhaps made the biggest sacrifice of over 300 of its serving officers. That must never be forgotten. Certainly, the law-abiding community, whether on the nationalist or unionist side, will never forget the sacrifice they made.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I will ask the Minister two brief questions. It may be that I have not understood his amendments, in which case that is my fault. First, on government Amendment 42, it seems that the trade union rules that apply normally to police officers will not apply to the ICRIR. Is that because it is a technical amendment to avoid overlap with the provisions of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which will apply to designated ICRIR officers but which is the law only in England and Wales at the moment?

Lord Caine: My understanding is that it reflects the fact that, while the commissioner for investigations will have the powers of a police constable, technically he is not a member of the police service.

Lord Hain: So there is no dilution of the rights of staff in the ICRIR?

Lord Caine: No.

Lord Hain: Okay. Secondly, on Amendment 183, does that in any way dilute the investigatory powers of the ICRIR? This is one of the concerns about the whole thrust of the Bill.

Lord Caine: I beg the noble Lord’s pardon—I missed the amendment number.

Lord Hain: Amendment 183.

Lord Caine: Absolutely not—nothing here is intended to dilute the investigatory powers of the commission at all.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I acknowledge the need for many of these government amendments, which clarify technical and procedural points. They do not go to the heart of the objections to the Bill that have been articulated tonight.
Some amendments, such as Amendments 6 and 7, are very minor. They provide for the provision of annual work plans, six-monthly reporting and things like that. It seems slightly heavy that you have to produce those as a matter of good governance—the auditors will require that. There is a requirement to provide annual reports and things like that, but, as regards putting that in statute, I do not object to it, but it is kind of heavy-handed. It goes again to the suspicion that the Secretary of State wants to be very involved in the work plans, how they are doing it and how they intend to distribute the resources that are available to them within the commission. I simply draw that to the Minister’s attention.
I am not sure about the meaning of Amendment 35. I know it is not the Minister’s amendment, but can he say whether it is possible that it may have the effect of limiting the application of some of the provisions of the Bill and some of the amendments that we have discussed and will discuss? There are powers other than those commonly known as police powers which may apply. I do not expect the Minister to answer that tonight, but will just leave the thought with him.
It seems that Amendment 41 may limit the ability of the commissioner to be flexible in the use of his staff. Obviously, the commissioner will be making decisions about which staff are required to have police powers and which are not. Those who have police powers will be able to do things such as arresting, searching and seizing, et cetera, while those who do not will not, but they can accompany and assist. I am not sure—perhaps the Minister can clarify this at a later time—whether an officer can have a limited subset of police powers, as provided for in the legislation, and I am not sure what that would add. So Amendment 41 may in fact not be particularly helpful in ensuring the most economic and effective use of the resources available to the commissioner.
The Minister referred to my reservations about Amendment 183. That refers to the removal of the provision making the ICRIR a relevant authority under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—which goes to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just asked. As I understand it, as drafted, the Bill gave the commission the right to require the delivery of data. Information may or may not have been requested by a previous investigation. If it was requested, it should be available in the files of that previous investigation. However, we know that, in many cases, data which may have been available was not requested by previous investigations for a variety of reasons, and therefore it will not be available to the commission unless the commission has the power to ask for it. The suggestion has been made—I thank the Minister for the discussions we had about this—that the holder of the data could voluntarily surrender it. That may or may not be correct, but my question is: this is actually a tool in the toolkit of a standard investigation, so why take it away?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to speak on this group of amendments.

Lord Bew: I do not have any amendments in this group.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. I want to pick up on a couple of points and speak to our Amendment 198.
My comments on government Amendment 6 are not dissimilar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It seems quite prescriptive in terms of the work plan that has to be produced. Is there any flexibility within that? Is this a plan that must be adhered to? Is it for the Secretary of State’s benefit in terms of monitoring? I would be quite interested to know what the intention of the plan is and how much direction can be exercised by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 198 is a probing amendment on the timing of commencement. It would insert
“but such day or days must not be beyond the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
At the moment, it is open for the Secretary of State to implement commencement when he or she considers fit. I would like some clarity on when the Government think it will come into force. The Minister is looking at me with a rather puzzled expression. I direct him to page 47 of the Bill, where he will see what I am talking about. I am surprised that he is looking at me that way, but it is not unusual. Clause 57 says that the provisions will come into force
“on the day on which this Act is passed … Otherwise, this Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.
I am curious to know the Government’s intentions on that.
I will be interested in the Government’s comments on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I think that the Minister will recognise that he will have to reassure and give confidence to those who have raised the issue. What he says tonight will be very important in that regard.

Lord Caine: My Lords, as ever, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Responding directly to the comments of my noble friend Lord Rogan, and other noble Lords from Northern Ireland, regarding Amendment 33, the Government are very clear that we must set up the commission properly and with the best people to give it the best chance for success. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is no prohibition whatever on the employment of former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—which was awarded the George Cross—no prohibition on the employment of former members of the Historical Enquiries Team and no prohibition on former members or current members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland applying to become commission officers. There is no prohibition within the current legislation.
I have made it clear in response to earlier debates that I share the admiration of noble Lords from Northern Ireland for the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the Troubles. The figure I have is that 302 officers were murdered in the course of their duties. I have always been struck by the montage that was produced a number of years ago of all those officers, under the banner “Our Murdered Colleagues”, a copy of which I have at home.
Slightly linking to Part 4 of the Bill, where we talk about oral histories, I agree with and share the concern of those noble Lords who believe that the record of the RUC is under sustained attack, mainly from republicans within Northern Ireland. I have said in this House before that what I have described as a pernicious counter-narrative of the Troubles has developed in recent years, which has put the state at the heart of every atrocity and seeks to traduce the record of the Armed Forces and the police. We ought to resist this.
On that, I can do no better than to commend three volumes of outstanding oral history put together by a very good friend of mine, Colin Breen, called A Force Like No Other: The Real Stories of the RUC Men and Women who Policed the Troubles. Colin is a former serving RUC officer. One of the reasons why those he interviewed were able to open up to him so candidly and vividly was because he is one of their own. Anybody reading those volumes will be struck by stories that range from the comic to the absolutely heartbreaking. I commend that particular oral history to Members of your Lordships’ House.

Baroness Hoey: I thank the Minister. Given what he has just said, is he saying quite clearly that he will not suggest putting it into the Bill? Given that we saw what happened to Kenova, does he share my concern that people feel slightly worried that what is said in this House and what Ministers think sometimes gets changed later if it is not in legislation?

Lord Caine: At this stage, I am not inclined to write a list of people who are disqualified from membership of the commission into the legislation. From reading the Bill, it is fairly clear that there is no disqualification, as I have set out. I would therefore probably argue that, while I agree entirely with its intentions, the amendment is not necessary as a matter of law. That would be my instinctive response.
On Amendments 35 and 41, the commissioner for investigations will have to be a person of significant standing and experience and will be responsible for the appropriate delegation of responsibilities to ensure that the commission can carry out effective investigations. The Bill is already clear that a person can be given the powers and privileges of a constable only if they are deemed capable of effectively exercising those powers and have received adequate training. In addition, Clause 3 makes it clear that the commission must ensure that, as far as is practicable, its officers include persons who have experience of conducting criminal investigations. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 also allows a designation under Clause 6 to be made, subject to any limitations specified in the designation. Paragraph 5 allows a designation to be time-limited.
Regarding the amendments and comments around timetabling, the commission’s processes will of course be complex. This is a significant undertaking, and it is our view that the commission’s delivery should be timely and not rushed. We have already taken a number of steps by establishing an implementation programme team within the Northern Ireland Office, whose job is, I stress, not to pre-empt the operations of the commission  but to lay the foundations, looking at the estate, IT, procurement, and so on, should Parliament agree to establish the commission, so that it can begin its work as quickly as possible.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said about commencement. I might be in a position to say a bit more about that at the next stage of the Bill. I will talk to her about it before we return to the Floor of the House, if that is acceptable to her.
On which note, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and—suffering from a hard day’s work turning into a hard day’s night—I also beg leave to withdraw my own.
Amendment 6 withdrawn.
Amendments 7 to 11 not moved.
Clause 2 agreed.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 9.51 pm.